 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2007CBD, found in Cannabis, Inhibits Spread of Cancer Cells in Early Tests
The journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics has just published a new study from the scientists and doctors at California Pacific Medical Research Institute which shows that a compound found in cannabis may prove to be effective at helping stop the spread of breast cancer cells throughout the body. The study is raising hope that CBD, a compound found in Cannabis sativa, could be the first non-toxic agent to show promise in treating metastatic forms of breast cancer. "Right now we have a limited range of options in treating aggressive forms of cancer," says Sean D. McAllister, Ph.D., a cancer researcher at CPMCRI and the lead author of the study. "Those treatments, such as chemotherapy, can be effective but they can also be extremely toxic and difficult for patients. This compound offers the hope of a non- toxic therapy that could achieve the same results without any of the painful side effects." The researchers used CBD to inhibit the activity of a gene called Id-1, which is believed to be responsible for the aggressive spread of cancer cells throughout the body, away from the original tumor site. Stopping or slowing down progress in the spread of the disease is a prime target for cancer researchers. "We know that Id-1 is a key regulator of the spread of breast cancer," says the senior author of the study. "We also know that Id-1 has also been found at higher levels in other forms of cancer. So what is exciting about this study is that if CBD can inhibit Id-1 in breast cancer cells, then it may also prove effective at stopping the spread of cancer cells in other forms of the disease, such as colon and brain or prostate cancer." Unlike cannabis or THC, an ingredient also isolated from marijuana that is used in some medical treatments, CBD does not have any psychoactive properties, so using it would not violate any state or federal laws. However, the researchers point out that this is not a recommendation for people with breast cancer to smoke marijuana. They say it is highly unlikely that effective concentrations of CBD could be reached by smoking cannabis. Dave Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/ > Unlike cannabis or THC, an ingredient also isolated from marijuana > that is used in some medical treatments, CBD does not have any > psychoactive properties, so using it would not violate any state or > federal laws. If you follow the advice of the spammer, you could end up serving a long prison sentence. But of course, he doesn't care about that. He doesn't care about you. He only cares about driving traffic to his commercial blogspot web site. CBD (a.k.a. cannabidiol) is in fact a Schedule I prohibited drug -- the highest level of illegality. See, for example: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d237297f-860f-484c-9ebf-15915f8a86f2 http://www.caymanchem.com/app/template/Product.vm/catalog/90080/a/z You can't trust the blogspot SPAMMER to give you correct information. I'm thinking it was the science of CBD he was posting. Let me ask you Mark, if Dave would not have posted this article, would you have posted yours, so we at least would have the knowledge of CBD? ________________________________________________ >> Unlike cannabis or THC, an ingredient also isolated from marijuana >> that is used in some medical treatments, CBD does not have any [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You can't trust the blogspot SPAMMER to give you > correct information. > I'm thinking it was the science of CBD he was posting. His intention was to post bait to get people to click through to his commercial blogspot web site. He was using CBD as the subject of his bait article. > Let me ask you Mark, if Dave would not have posted this article, would > you have posted yours, so we at least would have the knowledge of CBD? No, if there was no "article" with wrong information in it, there would have been nothing for me to correct. But when the spammer posts seriously incorrect information, don't me to just let it ride. Some of the spammer's earlier postings could have resulted in serious injury or death. Are you opposed to me pointing out the major errors that the spammer makes in his crap articles? >> I'm thinking it was the science of CBD he was posting. > His intention was to post bait to get people to click > through to his commercial blogspot web site. He was > using CBD as the subject of his bait article. He posted the meat of the article, I never clicked through. So what, if others have further curiosity? >> Let me ask you Mark, if Dave would not have posted this article, would >> you have posted yours, so we at least would have the knowledge of CBD? > No, if there was no "article" with wrong information > in it, there would have been nothing for me to correct. Coming up short on comprehension? I never asked about errors. Here again is exactly what I asked: "if Dave would not have posted this article, would you have posted yours" meaning the CBD science, as you later reported here: <http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d237297f-860f-484c-9ebf-15915f8a86f2> I think the rest of my statement "so we at least would have the knowledge of CBD?" made that clear. > But when the spammer posts seriously incorrect > information, don't me to just let it ride. For sure, you are a nit picker, even when it has nothing to do with his message. If you recall, his message was: "CBD, found in Cannabis, Inhibits Spread of Cancer Cells in Early Tests" Was his posted information current news? While we're at it, let's correct another misunderstanding. You are apparently ill informed on Usenet's convention, as to what constitutes spam. > Some of the spammer's earlier postings could > have resulted in serious injury or death. I didn't mention your previous haranguing. Nor do I take any prescription meds. Do you? Wouldn't one need a doctor for that? Like to write the prescription and all? > Are you opposed to me pointing out the major > errors that the spammer makes in his crap > articles? You seem to dislike most everything about that "Dave" guy :( Had he not posted his article, could we have counted on you to post your version of it, informing us all? (<http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d237297f-860f-484c-9ebf-15915f8a86f2>) Steve Young > >> I'm thinking it was the science of CBD he was posting. > > His intention was to post bait to get people to click [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Steve Young Hey Guys, Mark could serve a purpose on this newsgroup, or any other he cross posts to, because he's very nit-picky and so are some others (I'm generally like that myself.) In his lust to find something to attack in my post about THE SCIENCE OF CPB, he actually caught an error. Just bringing it to my attention, so that I could get ahold of someone at the prestigious California Pacific Medical Center, would have been great. Althought that point is very minor (no reader here is running off to trying and biochemically purify this compound, as the article was about positive health benefits and not illicit drugs), Mark's point was good and it resulted in a corrrection from CPMC, see below: "Dave, Sean forwarded your email on to me. I'm the person who wrote the news release and inadvertently mixed up the fact that while CBD is not psychoactive, it is indeed considered a Schedule 1 drug. My apologies for the error. We are sending out a corrected version." Kevin McCormack, Media Relations Manager,California Pacific Medical Center So -- Mark has value. He just has no idea in which direction to apply it. As it stands, he appears a troll, but if he used his passion and investigative talents in another way . . . we'd all be better off. At least, the newsgroups he cross-posts flames to would be. Dave > Mark could serve a purpose on this newsgroup, or any other he cross > posts to, because he's very nit-picky and so are some others (I'm > generally like that myself.) In his lust to find something to attack > in my post about THE SCIENCE OF CPB, he actually caught an error. Just Your crap "articles" are full of errors, and I've pointed out lots of them (and other people have pointed out your errors, too). Some of these errors could result in harm or death. But you don't care about that. You only care about driving traffic to your commerical blogspot web site. You have no conscience about the errors you make and the harm they may cause. > bringing it to my attention, so that I could get ahold of someone at > the prestigious California Pacific Medical Center, would have been > great. Althought that point is very minor (no reader here is running > off to trying and biochemically purify this compound, as the article > was about positive health benefits and not illicit drugs), Mark's > point was good and it resulted in a corrrection from CPMC, see below: If it was an insignificant error, they would not have bothered correcting it. > "Dave, Sean forwarded your email on to me. I'm the person who wrote > the news release and inadvertently mixed up the fact that while CBD is > not psychoactive, it is indeed considered a Schedule 1 drug. My > apologies for the error. We are sending out a corrected version." > Kevin McCormack, Media Relations Manager,California Pacific Medical > Center That just shows the quality (or lack thereof) of your sources. You should have caught this major error yourself, but you don't have the competence to do so. You just copy whatever crap appeals to you, without even reading it -- or if you do read it, you don't understand it. > So -- Mark has value. He just has no idea in which direction to apply > it. As it stands, he appears a troll, but if he used his passion and > investigative talents in another way . . . we'd all be better off. At > least, the newsgroups he cross-posts flames to would be. I most certainly know where to apply it -- to oppose quacks, quackery, frauds, and spammers. Providing the truth and saving lives is what I'm all about, not selling worthless supplements to fools or your dishonest Internet-get-rich-quick scheme. > > Mark could serve a purpose on this newsgroup, or any other he cross > > posts to, because he's very nit-picky and so are some others (I'm [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > not selling worthless supplements to fools or your > dishonest Internet-get-rich-quick scheme. Mark, I would seriously get some help if I were you. There may be people in your life who care about the time you are spending on this stuff. Really, get some help. Good luck to you. Dave [...] >> So -- Mark has value. He just has no idea in which direction to apply >> it. As it stands, he appears a troll, but if he used his passion and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not selling worthless supplements to fools or your > dishonest Internet-get-rich-quick scheme. A Great American Hero! Stand up tall Mr. Package Insert, puff up you chest, pat yourself on the back, for today YOU single handedly saved countless from the humility of dreaded, miserable existences in cold, dingy prison cells. Think of the school kids snatched back from the hands of lawlessness as a result of your corrective voice. And mr. smarty pants, when you show me how Dave's posting is violating Usenet's BI, then I'll know you're doing more than simply quacking out your a.s. Quack! Quack! Quack! > Coming up short on comprehension? I never asked about errors. So, you don't care about errors, is that right? > Here again is exactly what I asked: "if Dave would not have posted this > article, would you have posted yours" meaning the CBD science, as you later > reported here: > <http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d237297f-860f-484c-9ebf-15915f8a86f2> > I think the rest of my statement "so we at least would have the knowledge of > CBD?" made that clear. You don't want to see wrong information being corrected, why is that? > > But when the spammer posts seriously incorrect > > information, don't me to just let it ride. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Spread of Cancer Cells in Early Tests" Was his posted information current > news? It's not nit picking to point out important errors in the spammer's crap "articles". I understand that you very much don't want that to happen. Why is that? He's posting spam to promote his commercial blogspot web site. That makes him a SPAMMER, and a particularly egregious one. He deserves no respect for his Internet-get-rich-quick scheme. Especially when his "articles" contain advice which could cause harm or death. He doesn't care about that, and apparently neither do you. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.