Bad Medicine?

Bad Medicine?
Posted by CN Staff on September 06, 2007 at 11:36:16 PT
By J. Adrian Stanley 
Source: Colorado Springs Independent 
Colorado -- American Cancer Society officials didn't waste any time removing medical marijuana activist Matthew Schnur from their local event in August. First, Schnur says, a volunteer scolded him, calling his efforts insulting to cancer patients. Then a director had police escort him out of the Relay for Life gathering. Schnur is used to the rejection. Though he and others are working to prove marijuana is medicine, the medical community hasn't warmed to the idea.
"I just think because of the recreational use, people have such a distortion about the use of this as medicine," Schnur says. "That's a shame for the people who need it." A representative of the local American Cancer Society chapter says no advertisers or lobbyists are allowed at the event; Schnur maintains he couldn't have known that before coming, since he says he never received replies from e-mails he sent to the chapter. David Sampson, national spokesman for the American Cancer Society, says his organization does not condone the use of marijuana, but does support more research. The society takes its viewpoint from a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. "Obviously, if there were major breakthroughs in this area, they would likely be published in a major medical journal, and we wouldn't be the only ones to respond to that," he says. For Schnur, who's researching the effects of pot while earning his master's degree at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, dealing with such skepticism is a side-effect of working with America's most controversial drug.  The Proof In Colorado, a 2000 amendment made medical marijuana use legal for patients registered with and approved by the state. Schnur smokes to relieve symptoms of the diabetes with which he was diagnosed as a child, as well as the neuropathy and gastroparesis he developed later. He says he was days away from getting that approval last year when he was arrested and jailed for possession and cultivation of marijuana. He pleaded guilty and was originally given supervised community service. However, when a diabetic seizure and a swollen foot kept him from the work, Schnur says, he ended up in jail for 16 days. There he suffered more seizures ó a rarity for him since he began using pot. Even with all of those troubles, though, Schnur says his reception in the scientific community still frustrates him most. He says he's in the process of posting more than 7,000 peer-reviewed medical marijuana studies (including his own) on his Web site -- He also works with Americans for Safe Access, a national pro-medical marijuana group, to spread the word about pot's benefits to local patients. Schnur isn't the only one who thinks marijuana is good medicine. At UCCS, he works with professor Robert Melamede, a nationally known marijuana advocate. "Cannabis in experimental studies in the laboratory kills the whole variety of cancer cells, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, glioma, leukemia, lymphoma, rectal cancer," Melamede says. "In addition, they relieve pain, they promote sleeping, they promote appetite and they're antidepressants. Well, doesn't that sound like exactly what a cancer patient would need? "They also turn off the genes that are involved in the metastasis of cancers. You know, they've recently been shown to kill lung cancer. So you would think that [Schnur] would be embraced for trying to help people, and instead the local people were a little uptight and weird about it." Like Melamede, Schnur is interested in the variety of diseases marijuana may be useful in treating. But considering his personal battle, he has a special interest in its impact on diabetes. Schnur says he will likely lose his right foot within five years due to complications of the disease. Making It Legitimate Imagine a bunch of stoned college students playing video games and passing around a joint. Now make those college students cancer patients. This is what a lot of folks think when they hear the term "medical marijuana." Clearly, the fight for acceptance involves some effort on the PR side. The first step is to get rid of the joint. Schnur is working on developing marijuana gums, lotions, fruit drinks and more. Losing the smoking element will help patients' lungs, as well. Another misconception, Schnur says, is that all patients want to get high. Some people are looking for a different benefit, he says, like a reduction in swelling. Schnur, who's now fully registered to self-medicate, says he's developing strains of cannabis to treat specific ailments. Not all strains get you high. Finally, Schnur is working on ingredient labels for various strains of cannabis. He hopes standardizing pot will give it legitimacy in the medical community. For now, Schnur is serving his three years of probation and chipping away at 300 hours of community service. He says probation officers are overzealous in overseeing his legal use of medical marijuana, and says they've even threatened to take away his three rescued pit bulls. His felony conviction will also limit his career choices. "As a felon, I will never get a legitimate job as a researcher, even with a Ph.D.," he says. "There is nothing I love more than science."Note: Local man tangles with American Cancer Society, police in his campaign to promote medical marijuana.Source: Colorado Springs Independent (CO)Author: J. Adrian Stanley Published: September 6-12, 2007 Copyright: 2007 Colorado Springs Independent Contact:  letters csindy.comWebsite: http://www.csindy.comCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #37 posted by afterburner on September 15, 2007 at 03:29:36 PT
Clarification to 'Bad Medicine?'
US CO: PUB LTE: Anti-Pot Obsession
(20 Sep 2007)
Colorado Springs Independent
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by Rainbow on September 10, 2007 at 07:23:27 PT
Thanks for ther references
I used the ACS web site and provided there feedback line with all the referecnes you provided. It took a few submits since they restrict a contact to 2000 characters.I told them that I blame them for my Dad's suffering especially if this scientific information leads to cures.They are as reprehensible as the federal government for with holding information and not supporting such supportive evidence.Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by whig on September 08, 2007 at 13:51:48 PT
I think people who smoke tobacco cigarettes might be harming themselves. So should they be put in jail?Of course not.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by museman on September 07, 2007 at 18:41:27 PT
I need to add
that 'harm' and intent does not apply -in the natural 'legal' sense- to what one does to themselves, even if what they do is self destructive; that is a moral/mental health issue that should be dealt with at the community level, not an issue of the federal government, or even state government. But first we have to get our communities back from the new age carpet baggers who have stolen it in order for that to have any real applicability,.. kind of like what we have to do with our personal liberties as well.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by museman on September 07, 2007 at 18:34:38 PT
While I agree with your conclusion of the basic facts concerning legalizing cannabis, I do contend with the party line of 'seperate issues' and I question the root motives of that 'perspective.'If it is a reluctant acceptance of the BS way that the polits do business with our lives, rights, and basic substance; i.e in order to get any sane progress at all we must compromise with the errors imposed upon us, I acknowlege that fact. However I do not subscribe to the 'treat the symptom and ignore the disease' point of view widely shared by the AMA, the DEA, the FDA, the pharma lobbies, and the power rich.The metaphor was used to illustrate that, as I stated, the issue is about personal liberty. That is the crux, that is the root. No one has the right to interfere in other people's lives, unless those people are interfering with them. What one does with their time, their words, their dance, their intimacies, and the substances they ingest is their own choice, and consequence, unless the lines that most folks are clearly aware of are crossed.If the action causes no harm, and there is no intent to harm then we are naturally at liberty to complete the action. All those who claim otherwise are out for power, and that too is a root cause of many social imbalances.The federal government is not our big brother, though the entire idea of compromise with their stark and blaring error, and wrongness lends credence to that concept. As a friend of mine once said "Give me liberty, or die M---f--rs!"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by FoM on September 07, 2007 at 14:59:34 PT
And One More Benefit
Birds love the seeds.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by whig on September 07, 2007 at 14:45:48 PT
Thank you for your explanation of the medical and recreational separation. We are united in saying that cannabis is good medicine, and good medicine should be legal, and it is a safer alternative for enjoyable recreation too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by afterburner on September 07, 2007 at 13:48:03 PT
museman #26 
Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by Yanxor on September 07, 2007 at 12:38:20 PT
As for divide and conquer
MMJ patients will always be supported by the general cannabis advocates because helping them will eventually help us get it legalized.The only thing we can hope for is that safe recreational cannabis use will have a friend in medical marijuana patients once it is legal for them, yet still debated as a recreational drug.Its not certain if such support will even be necessary, as it is possible that the legalization of recreational cannabis use, and medical cannabis use will both be accomplished in generally the same time-frame.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by Yanxor on September 07, 2007 at 12:34:11 PT
While I detest the prohibition of cannabis in general, it does seem to me that there is a seperation.Using the pro-choice metaphor, I think the difference between medical cannabis and cannabis legalization is the same as abortions for women whose life is threatened by pregnancy, and abortion as a personal choice related to career goals and ideas of when and how and if to have a family.Just like we should not be putting women whose lives are threatened by abortion into the middle of a highly polarized issue, we should not be placing the terminally ill into the middle of a highly polarized issue.By we, I mean American society in general, not cannabis activists.In no way am I trying to deny that legalization of medical cannabis is going to establish a certain legitimacy to cannabis in the mind of the average american. and the government loves pointing this out as a reason for preventing legalization of cannabis - yet it will happen, and it actually should happen because the plant, and its chemical composition is incredibly benign to the human body. As far from being toxic to humans as possible.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Rainbow on September 07, 2007 at 11:37:13 PT
Sam Adams Post #1
sam,Look up the efficacy of open heart surgery and bypass (CABBAGE) surgery.You will be surprised how many people have the surgeries and that some believe they are not prolonging life with these types of procedures.Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by museman on September 07, 2007 at 10:33:36 PT
"These are really seperate issues, even if they have a lot of impact on each other."Divide and conquer. That's what the feds want. Cannabis prohibition is against cannbabis, period. The only reason why it is illegal in the first place is because they claim that it has 'no medical use.' The feds know that if this fact becomes firmly established in the minds of the public, or in a court of law, then their bogus house of cards comes crashing down. Allowing the 'hippy and the high' to get into the debate is just what they want. Alienate the majority of users, keep prohibtion alive for the lucrative milking of the population, and give the pharmaceutical companies full control over all the natural herbal medicines given by God, forcing us to have to pay them for the 'privilege' of consuming their various chemical poisons.The heart of prohibition is about personal liberty, not the medical effacy of pot.They are no more 'seperate issues' than a womans right to govern her own body is 'seperate' from abortion rights.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Had Enough on September 07, 2007 at 09:32:43 PT
Bill & His Moral Compass
Yes Sir; Our boy Bill, ďThe Most Virtuous Man in AmericaĒ is still cashing in.Bill Bennettís' "Morning in America"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Hope on September 07, 2007 at 09:18:25 PT
Good grief!
Virtuous Bill has a show of some kind?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Yanxor on September 07, 2007 at 06:09:00 PT
I wrote Mr. Bennett's show an e-mail, expressing my outrage over the fact that medical marijuana patients are cough in the crossfire of our government trying to stop recreational cannabis use.These are really seperate issues, even if they have a lot of impact on each other.Hopefully someone will respond.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by Hope on September 06, 2007 at 22:34:17 PT
It's easy to be angry and it's hard not to be bitter.Don't apologize for your rant. It's outrage. Bill Bennett used to like to ask "Where's the outrage". I've often thought I'd like to say to him, "Mr. Bennett. The outrage is right here. Here it is!"Our leaders? It's hard to see so much ignorance causing so much harm to so many people.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by afterburner on September 06, 2007 at 22:28:44 PT
The Gall of the American Cancer Society
When I found out that the American Cancer Society originally opposed the passage by the US Congress in 1937 of the Marihuana Tax Act...When I found out that the US Federal Government suppressed the 1974 study showing that cannabis kills tumors...When I found out that today's American Cancer Society had sold out its mission to US Government lies and political pressure...I decided never to give one red cent to American Cancer Society research (eventhough I have had close relatives die of cancer), until the American Cancer Society comes clean and apologizes for their part in causing the unneccessary deaths of so many people.I raise money for heart and stroke research, but I do not think the American Cancer Society is serious about their mandate.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by Yanxor on September 06, 2007 at 21:28:51 PT
Long ago I realized that the media is extremely conservative when it comes to cannabis. That's why C-News has been such a wonderful resource.The media thing might have something to do with the fact that writting a story about the evils of drugs is more sensational....but then again, I'm not sure how "Cannabis kills cancer" is not sensational...Either way, judging the way mainstream media handles cannabis, I doubt they'll be doing our bidding any time soon.The scientific community largely ignores these papers because openly supporting them very likely jepordizes the grants that they recieve from the federal government. Whoever politicized the FDA along with the research-grant process, should defenitely be used instead of one lucky rat in one of those studies...I for one have nothing against injecting cancerous cells into their brain and seeing perhaps if prayer will work better than THC and CBD.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Yanxor on September 06, 2007 at 21:20:06 PT
One day
When this is all over, there should be a detailed inquiry into why and who was responsible for keeping a plant with amazing tumor killing capabilites and a modest set of side-effects from being more thoroughly researched.Why has the government done everything in its power to politicize something that could help millions, why does mainstream media not cover all the positive research about cannabis and only spews forth molten manure of the Drug Czar's "Pot 2.0" bullshit.I swear, how can anyone remember Nixon or Reagan as a good leader...How come does the average american not know that Bush has drastically cut the funding for research grants in every field that doesn't help us kill people more efficently...its not just stem cells.How can these men masquerade behind a veil of morality as millions of people die of cancer, and other diseases. Why are Europe, China, South Korea and others years ahead of us in stem-cell research. When in 40 years, we are required to go to China to get a new liver or kidney, cultured from our own cells, who will thank Bush for his tough moral decision.Who can possibly think that simple possesion should be a felony, its all so so clearly propoganda...who the hell looked at all the scientific and medical literature and decided "the way I see it, cannabis is far too dangerous to use in any medical context now, but perhaps if we were to recieve more money for research."The fact that cannabis does have medical benefits is as certain as the fact that tylenol might have some merit as a painkiller.I appolegize for ranting, but it just angers me to no end when science is so raped and distorted by people who are willing to watch their own countrymen die for some small political gain.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Hope on September 06, 2007 at 19:52:47 PT
Paul Armentano, Storm Crow...anyone?
Can you tell me how the people who are denying these studies exist are getting away with it?Why do they keep on lying and ignoring them? Are the studies considered shoddy or something, by the medical community that keeps ignoring them?How and why are they being allowed to get away with it? This shouldn't be something that everyday people have to point out to them. Why aren't the scientists involved in these research efforts complaining about being ignored and discounted? Why don't they go to the papers or the media or something about it? For that matter, why isn't the media on this like the "Watchdog" they are supposed to be?The Washington Post. The New York Times. The Chicago Tribune. All the big papers and media should have investigative reporters investigating all over the place trying to discover why these studies are being ignored. Who, exactly, is behind it and why? I want to know...and I'd like to see the media get out there and put some effort into finding the answers and informing us all.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Dankhank on September 06, 2007 at 19:27:55 PT
let me up the cancer ante
Pot Shrinks Tumors - Government Knew in '74 perfidy of the government has no bounds ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by The GCW on September 06, 2007 at 18:43:07 PT
left to ACS, medical cannabis would be eliminated
Citizens and families who wish to donate money to oragization for cancer research would be wise to give to medical cannabis research groups instead of the American Cancer Society.There are medical cannabis research groups that tell the truth and do not have to answer to corporate or government interests.If it were left up to the American Cancer Society, medical use of cannabis would not be a legal option in those 12 or 13 states.In fact if it was left up to the ACS, legal medical cannabis use would be eliminated! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Storm Crow on September 06, 2007 at 17:06:13 PT
Suppression of medical evidence...
Has been going on for a L-O-N-G time! This abstract is from 1987! How many died of leukemia during those 30 years? Should the government be charged with depraved indifference, murder, or both? In my eyes, they are guilty!Cannabinoids induce incomplete maturation of cultured human leukemia cells 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by mayan on September 06, 2007 at 17:05:03 PT
This is very alarming...Ice-free Arctic could be here in 23 years: the above linked article..."Experts said they were "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as Britain disappearing in the last week alone. So much ice has melted this summer that the north-west passage across the top of Canada is fully navigable, and observers say the north-east passage along Russia's Arctic coast could open later this month."THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...Bin Laden Plans Video on 9/11: bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government: Plans 5 Day Martial Law Exercise: Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks: Ebersole's 9/11 Truth: 2+2=4: Is Truth: WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by mayan on September 06, 2007 at 16:18:28 PT
They are gonna' be real pissed when they find out that cannabis can prevent and even cure certain cancers! Some folks will have a lot of explaining to do. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Yanxor on September 06, 2007 at 15:33:30 PT
I'm somewhat certain that the American Cancer Society and all those research institutes get a significant amount of their funding from the federal government, and I'm somewhat sure that this whole mmj denial has something to do with that.Also, a lot of the research going on in the US regarding cannabis has to be funded, as scientists don't have the kind of assets to buy the expensive materials that are required for their studies - again, grants from the feds dont come as easily if you're trying to show that cannabis is not very harmful and can be used as an effective medication against many debilitating diseases.What the system did to Schnur is just dispicable...the man is inspired by his own tragic medical condition to help the lives of others like him and he is treated like a common criminal for that.One day, the governments claims that cannabis has no medicinal value will be as ridiculous sounding as the Church's claims that the sun goes around the earth...that one day passed a long time ago. And yet kids all across the nation have DARE and the like shoving propoganda down their throats.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Had Enough on September 06, 2007 at 15:24:11 PT
You can leave it; itís your call. It fits the article here too. I reposted it where I intended it to be, as you probably already know by now.It is fine with me to leave it.Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on September 06, 2007 at 15:16:34 PT
Had Enough 
Is it ok to leave it? I do that too. It fits everywhere if you ask me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Hope on September 06, 2007 at 15:12:12 PT
IOM Report 1999 is the Cancer Society's business to "condone" anything? Why not just present the material? The IoM Report of 1999 confirms that cannabis does indeed have medicinal value.Why else would they recommend studying it and taking it apart and reproducing it with synthetic chemicals?The "Further exploration" the IoM report asks for and the Cancer Society is waiting for, is nothing more than suggesting that pharmaceutical companies could, if they were allowed to, and wanted to, explore the possibilities of a way for them to gain financially, by taking the natural plant apart and designing synthetic forms to bring to the already gargantuan pharmaceutical market. It's just very handy for them, the pharmaceutical companies, that the natural plant is prohibited. I don't think they'll touch it though. They're smart enough to know that if they come out with synthetic cannabis derivatives, that do wonders for people... that they will have to be expensive...and if they are expensive...people will prefer the less expensive natural plant.Naturally, to the medical and pharmaceutical elite, that's money that should should be going to the Pharmaceutical Industry... not some hick farmer growing a plant. Continued prohibition of the plant is their best protection against that profit loss and they know, as I've already mentioned, that whatever they discover or derive from the plant can be used against them to favor the natural plant. They'd be crazy to do that. The would see it, and probably rightly so, as a "Fool's errand"..."Money wasted". "Give me 800 dollars for these few pills or drink the natural dirty old leaf tea for a pittance of the price." They know what will happen when most people are given that choice.The IoM report was to answer the question of whether cannabis/marijuana has any medical value at all. Do they want to recommend smoking anything? No. They don't want to recommend that delivery. But to answer the question, "Does cannabis, even smoked cannabis have medicinal value?". The answer was, "Yes".The IOM even mentions quite clearly that the synthetic versions available by prescription are stronger and more unpleasant for those who have trouble dealing with the effects of the actual plant, than the plant itself."First, for some patients--particularly older patients with no previous marijuana experience--the psychological effects are disturbing. Those patients report experiencing unpleasant feelings and disorientation after being treated with THC, generally more severe for oral THC than for smoked marijuana."The report does not "recommend" smoking, but it never denies that cannabis has medicinal value. They tippy toe around the calamity that it would be seen as, if legalized, by the pharmaceutical companies by recommending that they study the plant and create synthetic forms that can be swallowed, (of course, disregarding completely cooking or brewing the actual herb) sprayed, patched, injected, or mainlined. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by paul armentano on September 06, 2007 at 15:11:03 PT
Mr. Sampson: Read this!
"Obviously, if there were major breakthroughs in this area, they would likely be published in a major medical journal,"Apparently neither Mr. Sampson or anyone else at the ACS actually reads the medical journals! Below are over 20 published studies/reviews assessing the anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids that have been published in recent years. I cited these in my "Emerging Clinical Applications" report, but there are many additional references also available in the scientific literature for anyone willing to look.[1] Guzman et al. 1998. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol induces apoptosis in C6 glioma cells. FEBS Letters 436: 6-10.[2] Guzman et al. 2000. Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. Nature Medicine 6: 313-319.[3] Guzman et al. 2003. Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids. The FASEB Journal 17: 529-531.[4] Massi et al. 2004. Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Fast Forward 308: 838-845.[5] Guzman et al. 2004. Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathways in gliomas. Cancer Research 64: 5617-5623.[6] Allister et al. 2005. Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. Journal of Neurooncology 74: 31-40.[7] Guzman et al. 2006. A pilot clinical study of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. British Journal of Cancer (E-pub ahead of print).[8] Cafferal et al. 2006. Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression in human breast cancer cells through Cdc2 regulation. Cancer Research 66: 6615-6621.[9] Di Marzo et al. 2006. Anti-tumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Fast Forward (E-pub ahead of print).[10] De Petrocellis et al. 1998. The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 8375-8380.[11] Sarfaraz et al. 2005. Cannabinoid receptors as a novel target for the treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer Research 65: 1635-1641.[12] Mimeault et al. 2003. Anti-proliferative and apoptotic effects of anandamide in human prostatic cancer cell lines. Prostate 56: 1-12.[13] Ruiz et al. 1999. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol induces apoptosis in human prostate PC-3 cells via a receptor-independent mechanism. FEBS Letters 458: 400-404.[14] Pastos et al. 2005. The endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells: a possible role for cyclooxygenase-2. Gut 54: 1741-1750.[15] Casanova et al. Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. 2003. Journal of Clinical Investigation 111: 43-50.[16] Powles et al. 2005. Cannabis-induced cytotoxicity in leukemic cell lines. Blood 105: 1214-1221[17] Jia et al 2006. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced apoptosis is jurkat leukemic T cells in regulated by translocation of Bad to mitochondria. Molecular Cancer Research 4: 549-562.[18] Manuel Guzman. 2003. Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nature Reviews Cancer 3: 745-755.[19] Baek et al. 1998. Antitumor activity of cannabigerol against human oral epitheloid carcinoma cells. Archives of Pharmacal Research: 21: 353-356.[20] Carracedo et al. 2006. Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes. Cancer Research 66: 6748-6755.[21] Gustafsson et al. 2006. Cannabinoid receptor-mediated apoptosis induced by R(+)-methanandamide and Win55,212 is associated with ceramide accumulation and p38 activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma. Molecular Pharmacology (E-pub ahead of print).[22] Natalya Kogan. 2005. Cannabinoids and cancer. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry 5: 941-952.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Had Enough on September 06, 2007 at 15:10:49 PT
Wrong Thread
FoMYou can remove my post if you care to. I goofed again. Had more windows going at one time than I realized.Thank You
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Had Enough on September 06, 2007 at 14:56:38 PT
Iíve been skeptical of these Medical Societies for a while now. I think it has turned into a cash cow for their executives.If I were leading the charge on cancer, any, and I mean any possible treatment would be researched thoroughly, even if the substance was Cat Poo, after all, that would what the people who donate money would want, and Iím sure cancer patents would appreciate it too.American Cancer Society has had info since the 70ís on this. Where is the insistence from their executives to call for research? How come they wonít go to the DEA and say we are going to do research for a possible cure for cancer and DEMAND permits. I think the answer is obvious to some, especially people who visit this websiteI really hate to put it this way but what would happen with these Cancer Societies Executives if they found a positive cure for cancer. They would be out of a job.And for the record, Iíve lost 2 immediate family members to cancer.*************Paul ArmentanoThank you for putting up that link to the tax statements, and also for all you do.A tip of the helmet to a true to life Knight of Cannabis
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2007 at 13:58:35 PT
great point Hope
The IOM report was supportive of medical cannabis!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2007 at 13:57:00 PT
Science, not propaganda
I guess we must post the link to Storm Crow's list of cannabis research on a daily basis. Thanks for that contribution Storm Crow! the American Cancer Society should spend a bit more time keeping up with Scientific research instead of government propaganda. There is abundant research supporting the medical use of cannabis should one REALLY care to know.Politics as usual.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Hope on September 06, 2007 at 13:46:18 PT
Matthew Schnur
Matthew Schnur. That's not an easy last name to remember or spell...but I expect we will see a lot more of it. I hope so. Matthew Schnur. What an amazing and admirable man.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Hope on September 06, 2007 at 13:36:01 PT
It's like they never actually read it!
"The society takes its viewpoint from a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on September 06, 2007 at 12:46:39 PT
"Obviously, if there were major breakthroughs in this area, they would likely be published in a major medical journal, and we wouldn't be the only ones to respond to that," he says.Oh? You mean like when the bacteria H. Pylori was discovered to cause ulcers in the late 70s by an Australian doctor, and it took 20 years for the snobby American & European doctors and medical journals to admit they were wrong?  I wonder how many patients bled to death during that time, while those oh-so-wise medical journals and Western doctors told them it was from "stress"??Or the tens of thousands of hysterectomies that women suffered, or the hundreds of thousands of people maimed by unnecessary back surgeries, that were 100% proven to work and supported by all the medical journals?  Until a few honest doctors finally convinced the insurance companies in the 80's to stop the greed-driven bloodbath?Or acupuncture, which was "proven" for oh, 3, 4 thousand years, and then rejected by your "major" medical journals for another 200 hundred years?Thank god this miracle drug is one that grows up out of the ground, so the pigheaded western medical establishment can't ever take it away. Sure, they can have us thrown in jail, but they still can't take this medicine from us. No thanks to the ACS! This vomit's for you, Mr. Samspon! Perhaps all the barfing chemo patients can bag it & mail to Mr. Sampson? He's asking for proof! What's the expression, "The proof is in the pudding"use ground shipping, it's slower.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment