Marijuana accelerates growth of HPV-related head and neck cancer (2020)
health.ucsd.edu
health.ucsd.edu
From the paper[1]:
"Similar to CNR1, the cannabinoid receptor CNR2 was also found to be highly expressed and correlated with worse prognosis in tumors such as breast cancer (16), renal cancer (17), lung cancer (51), and HNSCC (21). In our study, the expression of CNR2 mRNA was upregulated in HNSCC compared with normal samples, and much higher in HPV-positive HNSCC samples. Meanwhile, knockdown of the expression of CNR2 inhibited the proliferation of HPV-positive HNSCC in vitro and in vivo. In addition, the selective CNR2 agonist Hu308 increased the growth, migration, and inhibited the apoptosis of HPV-positive HNSCC cells, whereas the selective CNR2 antagonist SR144528 exhibited an opposite effect. These phenomena were also observed in other tumors such as colon cancer, in which CNR2 activation promoted cancer progression via the AKT/GSK3β signaling pathway when cannabinoids used in concentrations similar to those in marijuana exposure (42)."
I hope someone with a background in this area can thoroughly evaluate this paper and explain to us laymen how reliable they think its methods and conclusions are. I also hope followup studies are done, particularly in humans, as this study was only carried out in cells and in mice.
As someone fighting cancer, this study worries me, despite the study being only done on cells and mice, and despite anti-drug research having a disgraceful history, which usually makes me take such studies with a grain of salt.
[1] - https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/26/11/2693
Penicillin based anti biotics break down into penicillamine https://wikidiff.com/penicillin/penicillamine
"penicillamine treatment relies on its binding to accumulated copper and elimination through urine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillamine
"Copper deficiency reduces interleukin-2 (IL-2) production and IL-2 mRNA in human T-lymphocytes" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9039825/
"In preclinical and early clinical studies, local application of IL-2 in the tumor has been shown to be clinical more effective in anticancer therapy than systemic IL-2 therapy, over a broad range of doses, without serious side effects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleukin_2#Medical_use
I'm left wondering if the medical experts should be telling us to consume copper supplements after being on a course of penicillin based antibiotics to reduce our risk of cancer!
IL-2 not only has a role in cancer treatment, but by regulating the white blood cells, how useful is this for old age problems like (rheumatoid) arthritis and other things like that?
Salt (sodium chloride) will increase some CD4 cells in a dose dependent manner to a point. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1541612 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30116758/
I know other chemicals vit K2-mk4 will reduce the inflammatory effect in RA (synovial cells), and RA may be the result of not enough of vit K2-mk4 which then increases demand for copper. K2-mk4 so far as I can tell is the only fat soluble vitamin which is stored in bone and also induces apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma, leukemia, and MDS cell lines. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18484089
This is just one pathway of many many in the body.
Medicine is a type of chemical programming/hacking.
Source for the age claim: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26066977/
[1]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-017-0873-x
>... researchers have identified the molecular mechanism activated by the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)... in the bloodstream that accelerates cancer growth...
"Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review" (open access)
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/97/1/127/4576988
Conclusions: Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses.
HPV is incredibly common, contagious, and causes no noticeable effects in the overwhelming majority of cases. If you've had sex with more than one person, or the person you've had sex with has had sex with more than one, you've probably been exposed to one or more strains.
Even when people think they don't have it, it's quite probable they do. Statistically speaking, more than a couple people in these comments have some form of it.
It’s a shame that the vaccine isn’t approved for older people as it appears to suppress a variety of viral cancers beyond HPV specifically.
Google is telling me you can receive the vaccine as early as 9, but it’s typically recommended/given at 11-12.
If that’s correct, HPV is something as simple as foot/hand warts that can often be spread in things like gym locker rooms. A fair amount of people are exposed to those environments around or before that age, & sometimes it’s spread by something as simple as your shared home bathtub/shower.
Rather than "worry," there are a few actionable items -
1) Get your HPV vaccine and encourage others to get theirs
2) Get regular cervical cancer screenings ("pap test") if you have a cervix
3) See a medical professional if you have any symptoms
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33101476/#:~:text=The%20hori....
On the facet of risk towards a particular form of cancer, it might be an awful hand.
On the fact of mental health, it might be a better hand than others: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/religious-u...
At the moment, since mental health seems to be a bigger issue than cancer (according to the media), it’s not trivial to define what an awful hand is :)
FWIW, Italy, not the most sex-liberal country, started recommending the HPV vaccine for both boy and girls at the 12th year of age a few years back.
As per the latest data, 50% of the female 2008 cohort had been vaccinated in 2020, older cohorts sit at 75% (boys at ~40%).
Seems it didn't take much to push the numbers up, other than telling people "don't die of cancer".
There are some reports of gaining some immune response to HPV strains not targeted directly by Gardasil 9. This makes sense since there are hundreds of strains and while it may not have a practical affect on me, it’s a nice feeling to know that I’m gaining some protection.
It can only be given to teens so most people haven’t gotten Gardisil and if you already have HPV (most do) it doesn’t make it go away.
Under the “Preventing HPV” section.
You can also be vaccinated as an adult. I’m half way through my series.
"Among teen girls, infections with HPV types that cause most HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 88 percent."
This isn't exactly the same statistic as what I said, since not all HPV infections occur during teenage years. But this is the statistic I was referring to. Apologies for my imprecision.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_...
My sense is that there are research domains that are functional, but others (social, clinical psychology) which are not at all. Given the level of motivated cognition and sloppy thinking evident in decades of psychiatric and other research into cannabis use, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find low standards in studies of this type. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's certainly my prior when reading any dietary studies, or studies of "bad effect x" of recreational drugs.
In general, when publishing any study like this the research should be contextualised properly. For example, it would make sense to state the effect size in relation to the risk of drinking 10% more than the recommended units of alcohol, or smoking 20 cigarettes per day.
Look at his paper - it clearly relies on values that he made up - there is not a single measurement of actual papers to fill in his formulas.
What he did was show it was possible for stuff to be wrong, given values he pulled out the air. When people did studies to measure those values from real papers, which Ioannidis did not, they found his made up values far from reality. For example, this paper shows how to do actual measurements of the values Ioannidis made up [1].
Here's one [2] (of many) paper showing that Ioannidis did not prove the claim people think he did for other reasons.
Carefully read the actual original paper, and note that there are many values to input to his model, that he hand waves over and does not actually measure.
[0] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
[1] https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.3718.pdf
[2] https://econpapers.repec.org/article/plopmed00/0040168.htm
When people measured the required items, his conclusion is not supported by evidence.
Ioannidis made assumptions that didn't hold up under empirical testing. End of story. Measurement trumps belief.
I gather you prefer conclusions based on feelings. I prefer my science to measure things to discard invalid claims.
So not surprised with this news considering the role it plays in cancer prevention initially and then protects the cancer cells once they get established.
This makes no sense.
And from where?
That is the study name. You are referencing the title of the press release from the university they work at.
While it’s perfectly fair to discuss the historical context of words, it’s important that we also recognize that using commonly used terminology in translating science for public consumption is necessary.
It’s also important to get basic facts right before trying to criticize peoples research.
It can do great things like alleviate seizures in children, but they showed it has issues as well. One example was that those who smoke small amounts to help with PTSD will eventually become desensitized and have to increase their dosage and at higher doses, it could make the patient worse off.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774264/
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoid+hyperemesis...
Cannabis use simply is not fatal, or even highly dangerous, under all normal conditions. Sure, yes, you can find a few 1 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 100,000,000 exceptions. You can probably find some of those for chocolate ice cream, too.
Three ice-cream deaths in a single state in a single incident! Nothing is free of risk, but despite the fearmongering, I still think cannabis is not very risky compared to many other things.
ERs have been flooded with severe cases of CHS over the past two decades. It's not just three people dying in rare cases, it's potentially 2.75 million[1] Americans experiencing CHS episodes every year which, given the 35 million[2] "regular" cannabis users, means that approximately 7% of users are susceptible.
For you to dismiss this horrific illness as "not fatal" and even "not dangerous" is outrageously arrogant and ignorant of a very real condition. You're essentially saying that those people did not matter, or did not exist, and that the pain and suffering I have experienced is irrelevant just because it's not the same experience as your own.
It is beyond disturbing that you feel so comfortable making medical claims about something you clearly have no understanding of. Shame on you.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29327809/
"Among 2127 patients approached for participation, 155 met inclusion criteria as smoking 20 or more days per month. Among those surveyed, 32.9% (95% CI, 25.5-40.3%) met our criteria for having experienced CHS. If this is extractable to the general population, approximately 2.75 million (2.13-3.38 million) Americans may suffer annually from a phenomenon similar to CHS."
[2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article145...
"Close to 35 million are what the survey calls "regular users," or people who use marijuana at least once or twice a month."
That is insane.
Don’t you think there might be something else going on there?
1. Cannabinoid content is through the roof. Legalization created a marketing arms race between growers to develop hybrids which yield the highest possible THC and CBD content (the only two cannabinoids listed on the labels), and that resulted in nearly every available strain now containing more than triple[1] the average THC since the 1990s. Plants are effectively now at their maximum potential levels, and that's not even considering the advancements in oil production leading to levels as high as 99% THC, while also being extremely easy to over-consume.
2. We thought it was strictly a childhood disease for hundreds of years[2]. In the early 19th century, documented reports of cyclical vomiting were largely from children experiencing migraines and an unexplained slowing of GI motility resulting in prolonged vomiting. Any cases reported by adults were presumed to be a continuation of their childhood cyclical vomiting syndrome. This presumption lasted until the 1980s, so until the past few decades there hadn't been a motivation to consider other possible culprits.
3. We thought cannabis increased GI motility. Until the research flood gates opened over the past couple of decades, there was a presumption that cannabis "improved" the digestive process. I've only ever found research that refutes this idea, so it seems to be a Berenstain Bears situation where everyone thinks we had done the research and came to a determination, but we've actually been operating entirely on the anecdote that weed "makes you hungry." In reality, cannabis slows GI motility[3a] and the "hunger" is actually a combination of reduced psychological inhibition and a reduction of PYY hormones[3b]. We think we're hungry, but we're actually overfilling our stomachs to extremes.
4. CHS can be induced on demand. A person susceptible to CHS needs only to consume cannabis for a prolonged period and then stop suddenly, at which point a vomiting episode is almost guaranteed to start. Unfortunately, "stopping" doesn't necessarily mean quitting, as all it takes to induce a CHS episode is eating a meal without smoking afterward and then going to sleep. At some point during the night, any previously smoked cannabis will no longer have an effect, but it takes a long time (typically days) for the body to restart producing the required endocannabinoids to replace the marijuana cannabinoids that the system had previously been flooded with -- which is why CHS sufferers often report of waking up unexpectedly early preceding an episode. All of this temporarily results in the upper intestine and stomach valve becoming virtually non-functional, but because the stomach is still producing digestive fluids, it eventually becomes overfilled. The vomiting starts because the stomach is desperately pumping and convulsing in an attempt to push its contents through a valve that has effectively become a brick wall.
[1] https://wayofleaf.com/blog/average-thc-content-over-the-year...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886424/
Your case does not seem very credible. Pushing an agenda? :-)
The titles of the research I linked to literally say "Cyclical Vomiting Syndrome" and "the effects of cannabis on appetite hormones". But you're claiming they don't have anything to do with cyclical vomiting or how cannabis affects appetite? You're claiming the exact opposite of reality.
> and the first one pushes ads for mushroom NFTs
A website had an ad? Stop the presses and shut down the internet! After all, we can't be having websites trying to pay their bills, right?
> Pushing an agenda?
You are performing the most ridiculously blatant case of gaslighting I've ever come across. You're trying to tell me that I don't experience the things I experience, and that I'm not reading the things I'm reading, and that ALL of my doctors are directly lying to me (and hundreds of thousands of other people), and that hundreds of scientists and medical professionals are wrong and creating fake research. But you're not making these claims because you actually know better or even bothered reading the things I linked to, but instead because a website had an ad that offended you, and for some insane reason you saw that as an opportunity to troll someone.
What's even more absurd is that you think I have an anti-marijuana agenda, while I'm sitting here actively smoking a bowl right now, knowing full well that I put myself at risk for CHS. I never said I was anti-marijuana, I said marijuana isn't perfectly safe.
So, you concocted an entire scenario in your head, and absolutely none of it is true. You are a shockingly disturbed individual, and the exact embodiment of what makes this place a toxic community.
I wish all the scheduled drugs had lists of side effects from actual studies and clinical trials to the FDA standard, just like every other crazy deadly poisonous substance they approve over there. The states aren't cutting it, its just embarrassing at this point that even as recreationally available that this substance cant be at the same standard as other drugs and relies on conjecture.
Correct. And of those two extremes, it's probably closer to the negative side than to the greatest thing ever. Unfortunately, the greatest thing ever has not been found yet.
I would say it’s both and it will depend on the users genetics and the quality of the cannabis. The pesticides used on illegal cannabis productions is not something to be ignored.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X2...
You have never experienced the joy of a cardboard box.
What's interesting is this applies to many FDA approved drugs too. The body has amazing homeostasis ability, which unfortunately leads to "rebound" effects from many drugs, e.g. when the PPI (heartburn drug) wears off, you might have even more heartburn because your body saw an unusually low acid level in your stomach and declared an emergency increase in acid production.
Every time a substance is put on schedule 1 it means basically no research will be conducted on the biochemical pathway that it uniquely activates, which means banning substances is ultimately holding back our progression into neuroscience and other biochemical fields. I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons. At least then people will know what they are getting.
> I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons.
Is probably a bit too spicy. You say the government robs us of agency but you know what else does? Addiction. It’s not bad for a government to put regulations in place for dangerous substances. I do, however, agree with the subtext that it should be _decriminalized_.
Nothing quite robs one of agency like death.
Before fentanyl, I don't think I would be for full legalization. At this point though non-legalization seems immoral.
Well, yeah. Hiding a Jew in 1940s Germany or a native child in 1960s Canada was totally illegal. Democracy functions when the individual is the moral authority because large groups reliably become sociopathic. I suspect that's baked into our biology to some degree, why would we historically form a very large group absent the kind of existential crisis that might require sociopathic behaviour?
Also for anyone who is unaware of what was meant by sheltering native children in Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop
As if drinking straight moonshine is somehow a better experience than a bottle of wine because the proof is higher.
One could even argue that stronger marijuana is good, since that means you need to smoke less to get an effective dose, and that reduces any adverse effects from inhaling smoke.
The analogy to "moonshine" is also a poor one. The increased potency of marijuana that is competently grown these days is also accompanied by superior aromas/flavors and an increased ability to customize your experience by selecting known strains. It's a superior product, not merely a product with more THC.
That's pretty much how it works with pot, too. That fragrant little bud of hydro is going to put you to bed after a couple of puffs, while all-day smokers can burn an eighth or more a day of mids.
What does this mean?
as far as how that can be used as a soothsaying device, i'm not a trader. I presume it's to be considered related to the public's interest and consideration towards the growth of the particular industry.
I notice a number of smart investors are starting to accumulate cannibis stocks. The trigger might be a repeal of the federal ban, which seems to be on the cards, even though (sic) Joe Biden promised to do it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/07/14/senator...
Like, I enjoy psilocybin and MDMA, but I'm going to upvote everything that claims it is good and I'm going to contribute my part to making it sound like the discovery of antibiotics. You know why? Anything less than that and the puritans won't let me have fun.
So I gotta lie. But you know I'm lying, I know I'm lying. It's just that when we make the argument in aggregate, you can't prove it. And there's enough dodgy science that I can invent all sorts of stuff. "There's some evidence for" is a quick trick to take a nonsense study and Gish Gallop someone with it. But that's the game. You made the game. I just play it.
but it works great for a lot of other folks. it just depends.
Black market weed is expensive because every step in the chain adds a risk premium to account for the legal risk of possessing and selling cannabis (and the physical risk of being robbed, etc). If it’s legal, that risk premium evaporates and the price (and profit margin) goes way down.
You’d think this fact would be readily apparent for something with a nickname like weed.