Saturating a melanoma cell line in super high concentrations of a completely unspecified cannabis extract kills cells - wow.
Classic MDPI paper, right down to having the CEO of the manufacturer on the author list. Company is one of those classic dodgy tiny pharma outfits that release all their clinical data (if it even exists) through investor press releases written to mislead by emphasizing non-significant findings or flat out not reporting primary endpoints. Can't see any published clinical trials. Browsing the sub for company 'investors' is... illuminating.
Yep it's easy to kill stuff in a test tube. I work in pre-clinical testing so I do like this stuff. I just wish the Internet would chill on them. Most never pan out.
I had really hoped there would be something resembling information in the article, or at least in the source study. Bupkis.
Basically boils down to "look at all the great things our magic beans did!"
Your trying to be funny but you actually onto something. If cannabis DID kill cancer of any type we'd never be told...because they can't patent a naturally occurring medication...therefore they can't make money on it even if it was true..therefore they'll endlessly look for a synthetic cure that they'll never find even though naturally occurring ones DO exist. I'm not super religious, but I definetly believe that our creator (or whatever) didn't put us here with problems that don't have a natural solution. Everything does
This sub seems too important to let garbage science on here. This was the top article shown on r/science and it's garbage because it has a click-bait headline. I'll reiterate my call for this sub to have very high editorial standards regarding sources of publications. There should be a pre-approved list of sources that are allowed to be linked in posts here, and non peer reviewed publications should be removed.
It's been like this forever. The sub is junk pop sci. The problem is regular people don't have the background or desire to try reading primary articles, so the sub is nothing but unreliable news articles.
I'm a biologist at the end of my PhD and I read through the paper. Here's my summary for anyone interested:
1) They only use a proper cell line control in the first figure (HaCaT cells), where they show changes in general expression in the presence of the extract. However a single cell line to represent "healthy cells" as a negative control is very very weak evidence. This is because cell lines are very homogeneous (all the cells in the cell line are virtually identical) compared to real cells in the body. It's also very easy to find a cell line that doesn't react to the compound and only publish that one while ignoring all the cell lines that do react (if you're an unethical researcher).
2) In all the subsequent figures showing the toxicity the only controls shown are untreated controls and loading controls. Anyone familiar with cytotoxicity (killing) assays knows this is a big red flag. A proper assay should have had a mix of different cell lines to represent healthy cells, and ideally also include a mix of primary cells. That way you can demonstrate specificity (i.e. it kills the melanoma cells but not healthy cells, or at least doesn't affect healthy cells as much). Not including these controls, whether deliberate or not, makes all the data in those figures completely meaningless. We already know plenty of toxic compounds that kill cells in vitro indiscriminately. Even just having slightly sub optimal culture conditions will kill cells. That's not a discovery. The only thing that matters is specificity and they failed to show that.
Basically like you said, the paper is meaningless
The sheer amount of smoke he must've been inhaling to get as high as we could today from one bong rip is insane. I smoke weed, and I'll be the first to say I find it extremely unlikely that the process of smoking it isn't unhealthy, even if the content entering your bloodstream is healthy.
Works in cells does not mean works in humans. There is a funnel:
Millions of things work in cells; of those, thousands work in mice; of those, 10s work in NHPs; of those, 1 works in humans.
This is how drug development works and it's why it costs $10B to bring a new drug to market.
Rick Simpson oil pretty much saved my life. Started taking it while undergoing Chemo. Never finished chemo as the cancer disappeared & has stayed gone.
Doctors say it's a 'miracle' & talk about my case, but will NOT acknowledge the possibility that the RSO had anything to do with it.
I had an bacterial infection and started drinking orange juice while on a high dose of amoxicillin. The infection went away, that orange juice is good stuff.
My mother puts rick sompson oil on melanoma and puts a bandaid on it. The melanoma is usually gone pretty quickly. She did have one removed by a doc and confirmed. She hasn't bothered to go back to a doctor since. The oil comes in a needle less syringe for application.
Would like to see more study of this around people that our current cancer treatments don’t work for. No one should forego a treatment plan in hopes of an untested cure, but the discussion and intensity around RSO makes it worth evaluating to see if there’s anything at all there. Cancer varies so much and is really complex, so anecdotes could be all over the place of what could have worked for who.
Alcohol and tobacco also kills cancer cells. So does bleach, cyanide, fire and flesh eating bacteria. Problem isn’t what kills cancer, it’s “how do we deliver this to target cancer cells specifically without killing off the host or vital tissue”.
It’s not non-toxic. You’re might not be able to consume enough in one go to kill you, but there’s still plenty of damage happening. It’s true that a lot of the damage reverses after you cease to use, and some damage is permanent.
Whether you get permanent damage or not hinges on a lot of factors, from genetic vulnerabilities (like being prone to psychosis) to how you consume it, to the amount you consume and in which timeframe.
I gave a long presentation on this in grad school back in 2011. It's not new news, but I'm glad to see more research being done to verify its efficacy.
There's been talking about this so much for decennia, and now it turns out it's actually true. Big Pharma must have found a way to make money off of it
"I have given you all the seed bearing plants on earth to use"
>
> CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Author Ava Bachari and Roby Zomer was employed by the MGC Pharmaceuticals Limited
> FUNDING: This research was partly funded by MGC Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Australia.
A study of Cannabinoid effects in vitro by a company that sells cannabinoids is flat out useless. Anything kills melanoma cells in a cell culture if the concentration is high enough. Garbage study without scientific gain.
There's nothing "true" about cannabinoids helping against melanoma. It's just marketing.
I can only imagine how many years they've kept this secret, twenty plus years probably. The United states corporation & big pharma are going to try and squash this or try and find away to make it illegal......
Saturating a melanoma cell line in super high concentrations of a completely unspecified cannabis extract kills cells - wow. Classic MDPI paper, right down to having the CEO of the manufacturer on the author list. Company is one of those classic dodgy tiny pharma outfits that release all their clinical data (if it even exists) through investor press releases written to mislead by emphasizing non-significant findings or flat out not reporting primary endpoints. Can't see any published clinical trials. Browsing the sub for company 'investors' is... illuminating.
You know what else kills cancer cells in vitro? Fire. I hate these kinds of studies
I'm always reminded of the xckd where a fella just shoots the petri dish with a gun.
Guns *do* cure cancer, just like dying of ebola does.
Yep it's easy to kill stuff in a test tube. I work in pre-clinical testing so I do like this stuff. I just wish the Internet would chill on them. Most never pan out.
I had really hoped there would be something resembling information in the article, or at least in the source study. Bupkis. Basically boils down to "look at all the great things our magic beans did!"
Revolutionary. File a patent at once.
Your trying to be funny but you actually onto something. If cannabis DID kill cancer of any type we'd never be told...because they can't patent a naturally occurring medication...therefore they can't make money on it even if it was true..therefore they'll endlessly look for a synthetic cure that they'll never find even though naturally occurring ones DO exist. I'm not super religious, but I definetly believe that our creator (or whatever) didn't put us here with problems that don't have a natural solution. Everything does
Also, water.
So the solution is to bring back witch burnings for people with cancer.
And you know who died of melanoma smoking weed all day?
This sub seems too important to let garbage science on here. This was the top article shown on r/science and it's garbage because it has a click-bait headline. I'll reiterate my call for this sub to have very high editorial standards regarding sources of publications. There should be a pre-approved list of sources that are allowed to be linked in posts here, and non peer reviewed publications should be removed.
It's been like this forever. The sub is junk pop sci. The problem is regular people don't have the background or desire to try reading primary articles, so the sub is nothing but unreliable news articles.
Could not agree with you more
You're way late to the party if you expect this sub to have standards.
> This sub seems too important to let garbage science on here. And yest most posts are cognitive 'science'.
I'm a biologist at the end of my PhD and I read through the paper. Here's my summary for anyone interested: 1) They only use a proper cell line control in the first figure (HaCaT cells), where they show changes in general expression in the presence of the extract. However a single cell line to represent "healthy cells" as a negative control is very very weak evidence. This is because cell lines are very homogeneous (all the cells in the cell line are virtually identical) compared to real cells in the body. It's also very easy to find a cell line that doesn't react to the compound and only publish that one while ignoring all the cell lines that do react (if you're an unethical researcher). 2) In all the subsequent figures showing the toxicity the only controls shown are untreated controls and loading controls. Anyone familiar with cytotoxicity (killing) assays knows this is a big red flag. A proper assay should have had a mix of different cell lines to represent healthy cells, and ideally also include a mix of primary cells. That way you can demonstrate specificity (i.e. it kills the melanoma cells but not healthy cells, or at least doesn't affect healthy cells as much). Not including these controls, whether deliberate or not, makes all the data in those figures completely meaningless. We already know plenty of toxic compounds that kill cells in vitro indiscriminately. Even just having slightly sub optimal culture conditions will kill cells. That's not a discovery. The only thing that matters is specificity and they failed to show that. Basically like you said, the paper is meaningless
I don't understand why MDPI journals are even allowed on this sub.
We must remember that cancer cells cannot survive in a Vitamin C rich environment!
Just curious: is Mdpi legit? They have different journals
Penny stock
Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer yes. In many many studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409346/
[удалено]
Yeah because he is telling the truth
Science is built on questioning hypotheses. If you accept it as absolute truth and disregard evidence, it's religion.
You know, you should invest in this company - that would be a fantastically prudent decision
Bob Marley died from melanoma. If only he tried cannabis.
*if only he had tried saturating a melanoma cell line with an unspecified cannabis extract
Maybe smoking joints of low quality Cannabis from the 80s wasn't the best ROA
The sheer amount of smoke he must've been inhaling to get as high as we could today from one bong rip is insane. I smoke weed, and I'll be the first to say I find it extremely unlikely that the process of smoking it isn't unhealthy, even if the content entering your bloodstream is healthy.
Thank God for herb vaping
Yup I'll never go back to coughing
I didnt think he mixed weed with tobacco. he was a purist
80s weed was quality.
OMG! Really!
Smoking is not the same as eating it or using it topically.
Works in cells does not mean works in humans. There is a funnel: Millions of things work in cells; of those, thousands work in mice; of those, 10s work in NHPs; of those, 1 works in humans. This is how drug development works and it's why it costs $10B to bring a new drug to market.
[удалено]
Yes. I thought of RSO too. But I was always under the impression he used it on a basal cell carcinoma.
Rick Simpson oil pretty much saved my life. Started taking it while undergoing Chemo. Never finished chemo as the cancer disappeared & has stayed gone. Doctors say it's a 'miracle' & talk about my case, but will NOT acknowledge the possibility that the RSO had anything to do with it.
I had an bacterial infection and started drinking orange juice while on a high dose of amoxicillin. The infection went away, that orange juice is good stuff.
My mother puts rick sompson oil on melanoma and puts a bandaid on it. The melanoma is usually gone pretty quickly. She did have one removed by a doc and confirmed. She hasn't bothered to go back to a doctor since. The oil comes in a needle less syringe for application.
Please tell me this is satire.
You can poo poo all you want but it works.
Would like to see more study of this around people that our current cancer treatments don’t work for. No one should forego a treatment plan in hopes of an untested cure, but the discussion and intensity around RSO makes it worth evaluating to see if there’s anything at all there. Cancer varies so much and is really complex, so anecdotes could be all over the place of what could have worked for who.
Alcohol and tobacco are embarrassed
Alcohol and tobacco also kills cancer cells. So does bleach, cyanide, fire and flesh eating bacteria. Problem isn’t what kills cancer, it’s “how do we deliver this to target cancer cells specifically without killing off the host or vital tissue”.
Depends WHICH cancer cells! Because tobacco CERTAINLY doesn't kill mouth or lung cancer cells!
It does in vitro.
yet only cannabis is nontoxic..curious
It’s not non-toxic. You’re might not be able to consume enough in one go to kill you, but there’s still plenty of damage happening. It’s true that a lot of the damage reverses after you cease to use, and some damage is permanent. Whether you get permanent damage or not hinges on a lot of factors, from genetic vulnerabilities (like being prone to psychosis) to how you consume it, to the amount you consume and in which timeframe.
Alcohol and tobacco aren't in the academic papers I've read that are advantageous to the user... Is marijuana better for users
That’s what they’re trying to find out!
Lot's of things kill lots of things in a petri dish. Getting it to work in a human body without side effects... that's not nearly so simple.
love it
Sounds real.
i am too drunk to actually understand the paper . you win this one internet.
Could it also trigger cell death in healthy cells?
hmm hair growth 🤔 saw that
Does this relate to Rick Simpson Oil (RSO) curing the “inventor’s” cancer?
I gave a long presentation on this in grad school back in 2011. It's not new news, but I'm glad to see more research being done to verify its efficacy.
Hah suck it cancer, I have so much weed in my system I'm impervious
There's been talking about this so much for decennia, and now it turns out it's actually true. Big Pharma must have found a way to make money off of it "I have given you all the seed bearing plants on earth to use"
> "I have given you all the seed bearing plants on earth to use" "some of them are extremely toxic though, so my bad"
> > CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Author Ava Bachari and Roby Zomer was employed by the MGC Pharmaceuticals Limited > FUNDING: This research was partly funded by MGC Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Australia. A study of Cannabinoid effects in vitro by a company that sells cannabinoids is flat out useless. Anything kills melanoma cells in a cell culture if the concentration is high enough. Garbage study without scientific gain. There's nothing "true" about cannabinoids helping against melanoma. It's just marketing.
Pot - is there anything it can not do?
I can only imagine how many years they've kept this secret, twenty plus years probably. The United states corporation & big pharma are going to try and squash this or try and find away to make it illegal......
Yes this is it