cbd and cancer reddit

December 15, 2021 By admin Off

There is very little evidence that it can treat cancer in humans. This is mainly due to the fact that the federal US government considers it illegal with no medicinal properties and a high risk of harm (same schedule as heroin). Therefore no randomized controlled trial (the gold standard for approving drugs) has ever been conducted. The DEA would need to reschedule marijuana before your question could be definitively answered.

As u/twistedbeans mentioned, there are some preliminary data that suggest it is at least able to slow some cancers. However, that was all largely done with cancer cells in a petri dish. In addition to pain relief, patients also report it helps them maintain body weight by treating the nausea from standard chemotherapies.

Whilst I appreciate that this is possibly true, it's quite unlikely considering a) the tumour developed to 41mm of size unimpeded b) the patient is an 80 year old person, her immune system is quite likely highly diminished.

For example, the lung mass may well not have been a cancer and could have been an infectious or inflammatory mass that regressed by itself.

This is not just a lung mass, but biopsy confirmed non-small cell lung carcinoma.

This is the weakest evidence imaginable, and drawing any strong conclusion from it is crazy.

This is the weakest evidence imaginable, and drawing any strong conclusion from it is crazy.

This is a case report of a single patient who had a lung mass which reduced in size, who was also using CBD oil.

We need real studies done on the positive and negative effects of lots of drugs. Psilocybin, thc, dmt, cbd etc. cant properly study these things until the laws change.

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

Sounds like it was cancer.

It is an absolutely collosal leap to say that it was the CBD oil that caused the mass to reduce in size, there are dozens of other better explanations. For example, the lung mass may well not have been a cancer and could have been an infectious or inflammatory mass that regressed by itself, or the mass could have been a cancer which was killed off by the immune system.

"She subsequently underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with non-small cell lung carcinoma"

The article is pretty specific that she was diagnosed with a Non-small cell lung cancer, it doesn't detail how they arrived at that diagnosis but considering they recommended a treatment of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy (all quite intense treatments, especially for an 80 year old with multiple co-morbidities) I highly doubt they went "Eh, it's probably NSCLC, let's fuck her up and find out"

Agreed though that a single case report is one of the weakest forms of evidence in scientific literature.

or the mass could have been a cancer which was killed off by the immune system.

A subsequent positron emission tomography (PET) scan carried out in July 2018 showed this lesion to be avid with a standardised uptake value (SUV) max of 10.5 and a non-specific increased uptake in the head of the right femur. She subsequently underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with non-small cell lung carcinoma.

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 now allowed as responses to this comment . Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

Except nobody is doing that, even the title on Reddit says "may [. ] Should be investigated for potential treatment" and the research is quite conclusive in it's inconclusiveness. Fact of the matter is one patient with a diagnosed case of lung cancer and a self-reported treatment of CBD oil (high in THC according to the provider too) went into remission, it's completely anecdotal but it joins the growing body of anecdotal evidence that a combination of THC and CBD is worth investigating as a treatment to cancer, on top of the already known and accepted fact that Cannabis is great at managing the symptoms of chemotherapy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Cell culture: cancer cell that grow on a petri disc. "Domesticated" cancer cells are much easier to kill than the ones running in your body. You just have to "unintentionally" forget to change the water for a day and they'll all die. Cancer cured.

Weaknesses of the study:

Cannabinoids (and THC!) increased lung cancer cell lysis (increased the rate at which lung cancer cells break down) in this study by triggering increased production of ICAM-1 (which naturally increases cancer cell lysis). The paper points to this as proof that cannabinoids have beneficial effects on breaking down lung cancer cells faster.

So it works like this. On the surface of every cancer cell has a little ICAM molecule. This molecule is like a docking anchor for killer T cells, white blood cells that kill cancer cells. The cannabinoids tested in this study are cannabindiol, phytocannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and R(+)-methanandamide. They increase the amount of ICAM on the cancer cells, allowing more contact with killer cells.

In vitro testing cannot be translated to in vivo results: just because you can kill something laying docile on a disc doesn't mean the drug is effective when use in a live organism. Dosage and concentrations used in this study cannot be translated to clinical practice at the moment.