British Medical Journal: Daily Use of CBD Oil May Be Linked to Lung Cancer Regression:
It may be worth exploring further the use of cannabidiol ('CBD') oil as a potential lung cancer treatment, suggest doctors in BMJ Case Reports after dealing with a daily user whose lung tumor shrank without the aid of conventional treatment. The body's own endocannabinoids are involved in various processes, including nerve function, emotion, energy metabolism, pain and inflammation, sleep and immune function.
[...] The report authors describe the case of a woman in her 80s, diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. She also had mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), osteoarthritis, and high blood pressure, for which she was taking various drugs. She was a smoker, getting through around a pack plus of cigarettes every week (68 packs/year).
Her tumor was 41 mm in size at diagnosis, with no evidence of local or further spread, so she was suitable for conventional treatment of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. But the woman refused treatment, so was placed under 'watch and wait' monitoring, which included regular CT scans every 3-6 months.
These showed that the tumor was progressively shrinking, reducing in size from 41 mm in June 2018 to 10 mm by February 2021, equal to an overall 76% reduction in maximum diameter, averaging 2.4% a month, say the report authors.
When contacted in 2019 to discuss her progress, the woman revealed that she had been taking CBD oil as an alternative self-treatment for her lung cancer since August 2018, shortly after her original diagnosis.
[...] This is just one case report, with only one other similar case reported, caution the authors. And it's not clear which of the CBD oil ingredients might have been helpful.
"We are unable to confirm the full ingredients of the CBD oil that the patient was taking or to provide information on which of the ingredient(s) may be contributing to the observed tumor regression," they point out.
And they emphasize: "Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of CBD oil and the observed tumor regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumor regression is due to the patient taking CBD oil."
Reference: "Lung cancer patient who had declined conventional cancer treatment: could the self-administration of 'CBD oil' be contributing to the observed tumour regression?" 14 October 2021, BMJ Case Reports.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2021-244195
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pir on Friday October 15 2021, @03:21PM (8 children)
Granted, it's only a single case, but various cannabinoids have repeatedly been shown to have positive effects for lots of different things, so good for her!
But a pack a WEEK? If that makes her a "smoker" -- then so does sitting in front of a campfire or fireplace regularly, or simply living in a major city.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Friday October 15 2021, @04:16PM (5 children)
Except that tobacco smoke is far richer in all sorts of carcinogens than most smoke. Not to mention the still-hot tar vapor that condenses on the surface of the lungs, gluing in place the cilia responsible for cleaning them.
Most smoke you end up breathing has already had plenty of time to cool and condense into solid particles that are far easier to clear, becoming at worst sticky dust (which is still bad, but not nearly as much so.) Cooling only takes seconds when mixing with large quantities of ambient air.
(Score: 1) by pir on Friday October 15 2021, @06:38PM (2 children)
Sure, that may well all be true, but there's a huge difference (in terms of potential adverse effects) between 2-3 cigarettes a day (presumably after meals) and 20 or 30 a day.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 15 2021, @08:14PM (1 child)
Perhaps, though not necessarily - Presumably at some point the layer of carcinogenic tar gets thick enough that further increasing the rate at which it's deposited has a significantly diminishing effect. Though I wouldn't want to even venture a guess as to when that happens.
And the point remains - just because you're not giving blowjobs to seedy characters in dark alleys to feed your habit, doesn't mean you're not an addict.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16 2021, @01:17PM
Rude. Just leave aristarchus out of this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16 2021, @09:18AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by mcgrew on Saturday October 16 2021, @04:35PM
There was a study about fifteen years ago comparing marijuana and tobacco, looking at four groups of seniors: Non smokers, those who had smoked cigarettes all their adult lives, those who smoked pot all their adult lives, and those who smoked both. They were curious about the difference between pot and tobacco, but expected those who smoked both to have twice the cancers of cigarette smokers.
The results were completely unexpected. Potheads had fewer cancers than nonsmokers (the difference was statistically insignificant) and those who smoked both pot and cigarettes had half the cancers of those who only smoked cigarettes.
The moral is, if you smoke cigarettes, buy some weed. Weed apparently is an anti-carcinogen (probably because of CBD).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @10:45PM
That's still at least three cigarettes a day. Of course most people underreport their own bad behavior. And even three a day is much worse than living in a major city, maybe unless it's Kashgar. Living in a major city is worth about -1 year of life expectancy, smoking is worth about -10.
You've probably seen media coverage of a recent study such as this : https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/health/air-pollution-emphysema-study-climate-scn/index.html [cnn.com]
But while these findings make for sensational news, this study just doesn't line up with observed changes in lung disease rates or life expectancy. A clinical discussion of the issues involved (though not specific to the exact study I linked) can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/40/38/3202/5522179 [oup.com]
In any event, the connection to pollution is about emphysema/COPD, and not lung cancer, which is almost always due to smoking or occupational exposure.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 16 2021, @04:45PM
I smoked a pack a DAY for over thirty years. When I was young that was the norm. There were ash trays in doctor's waiting rooms, and on airplanes. Just had a physical, my doctor wants me to get an MRI because I used to smoke, so since Medicare will pay for it, I will.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Teckla on Friday October 15 2021, @03:26PM (3 children)
And yet cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I drug. So stupid...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @03:49PM (1 child)
President Biden will legalize it as part of his War on Cancer.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @04:13PM
War on Cancer you say? The US way would be to put all black people with cancer in jail.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 16 2021, @04:41PM
Stupid, but not unexpected when you know the history. It was outlawed on the basis of bald faced lies. Harry Anslinger should have gone to prison for lying to congress. He was the head of the federal narco unit and didn't think congress was giving him enough money to fight heroin, so he made up the lie about pot so the extra cash could be funnled to the fight against heroin. At the time, only Hispanics and jazz musicians smoked it, and nobody cared about them.
Then came Vietnam, thirty years later.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Friday October 15 2021, @03:46PM (3 children)
When I was a kid a lot of misinformation about cannabis was spread by people who wanted to keep it illegal and to keep anyone from using it. A lot of those people were in law enforcement. I was skeptical of that information. These days it seems that cannabis is being promoted as a panacea, treating not just glaucoma, but everything from anxiety to cancer. I recommend staying skeptical.
"suggest doctors in BMJ Case Reports after dealing with a daily user whose lung tumor shrank without the aid of conventional treatment."
The key word there was "a", meaning one. That's not data it's an anecdote.
Significant victories have been obtained by those who wish to have marijuana legalized. For those who would like to see that progress reversed, merely debunking the most extreme claims of its advocates would serve to sway public opinion substantially.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday October 15 2021, @04:35PM (1 child)
You're not wrong about this particular case - it's just one anecdote, not useful data on its own.
It's hardly an isolated finding though. Numerous studies over the years attempted to prove that cannabis smoking was just as dangerous as tobacco, but instead they consistently found a slight negative correlation with lung cancer even among the heaviest users. Given the fact that cannabis smoke is hotter and tarrier it *should* be even more carcinogenic, unless there's some potent anti-carcinogenic factor as well.
There've also been a few studies now suggesting that topical cannabis oil may be an effective treatment for skin cancer.
Keep in mind as well that cannabis has been used in traditional medicine for millenia, and prior to prohibition cannabis-based medicines were quite popular, and pharmacies routinely sold them to treat a wide range of ailments.. Granted, they did the same with cocaine, heroin, etc. - but those tended quite effective too, it was only the potential for addiction that was a problem.
Now, there's plenty of off-their-rocker hard-core enthusiasts promoting it's medical value against all sorts of wonky and unlikely ailments. But don't let the fervor of the lunatic fringe distract you from the fact that it really was widely recognized as a valuable medicinal herb long before it became popular as a recreational drug. And that modern studies have shown that it is in fact extremely effective against many things - from nausea, chronic pain, and loss of appetite, to seizures and, yes, seemingly even many cancers. And that despite the fact that its classification as a Schedule I substance makes it extremely difficult for researchers to get authorization to study its effects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16 2021, @09:16AM
Indeed, it's technically a datum.
(Score: 2) by corey on Friday October 15 2021, @10:31PM
Reminds me of one of my favourite movies, The Pineapple Express. “General, we have a resolution on the test: ILLEGAL!” (Or words to that effect)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @05:04PM
I've found that huffin' used motor oil on a daily basis has done me wonders....*thump*
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @06:02PM (7 children)
Love the medical research field. A journal publication written with a sample with n = 1. What's the standard deviation for a group with n = 1?? I'm envious because I come from a discipline where we actually worry about statistics. Here, you can go from n = 1 to late night infomercials for "miracle cure" products!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @06:12PM (5 children)
Thanks another AC :-) It's nice to see I'm not the only one.
Honestly, lots of doctors don't know much about statistics, but this actually being an article for the more general public and not just in the Letters section is quite abysmal. Now this "research" of 1 will be held up by all the pot heads how great pot is.
False hope and snake oil is not good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @09:30PM (4 children)
Thing is, a simple search can give you hundreds, or possibly thousands, of very similar "samples of 1" from the past couple decades. The observation itself is very, very, VERY old news; the only thing of note here is BMJ daring to publish this very-politically-incorrect piece at long, long, LONG last.
(Score: 1) by Mockingbird on Friday October 15 2021, @11:29PM (2 children)
There are many, many anecdotes by crazed individuals testifying how CBD Oil [drsircus.com], or Goat Gland Science [nationalgeographic.com], or Young Blood Transfusion [inverse.com], or Homeopathy [nih.gov], saved their lives. Of course this is a product of "survivor bias". For every person cured, countless others probably died like Steve Jobs.
As the GP said:
Yes, a cure-all for what ails you! Used to be snake oil, but now cannabis oil! [sciencefocus.com] Better than actual oil of snakes [chillicothegazette.com], since that tends to be unhealthy for snakes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16 2021, @12:00AM (1 child)
Pothead here. You have a point. What really worries me is that so many people finally did the right thing and legalized, but on the basis of magical thinking.
How many were thinking about abolition of the prison-industrial complex, or at least the role of prisons and law-and-order demagoguery in providing an end-runaround of the 13A. 3 strikes and you're enslaved.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16 2021, @09:10AM
I'd say the potheads are on the frontline in eliminating that form of slavery, because we had decades of being discriminated against (vs, e.g., tobacco smokers or alcohol drinkers or coffee drinkers), imprisoned, and so on. I know I was jailed for it, and it set the tone for much of the work I engage in to this day.
Look, most of those people in prisons and jails are actually pretty nice people. But it makes it a lot harder to lock up your neighbors and friends when you think of them as people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16 2021, @02:31AM
Yes, the other favorite medical research method: the meta-analysis!
Again, all the lost grants I could have gotten if I didn't stay in the hard sciences.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 17 2021, @10:36PM
In addition to studies, medical journals contain "case reports". This was one of them. They suggest things that might be worth doing actual research on. They may even suggest things that might be worth trying if the patient's situation is dire enough to justify the risk. But they make no claims beyond that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @06:07PM (7 children)
Might as well talk about holy water. A study of 1 is useless. Tumors can regress spontaneously. It doesn't mean whatever you are doing is actually curing it - most likely just a coincidence. The purpose of this entire report is to maybe make it interesting for others to look at it to see if they can replicate the results. On the other hand, how many other smokers had tumors and self-administered marijuana or the magic 'CBD oil' and died? But no reports because it's normal and expected, right?
If anything, the comments are interesting and show their bias and/or lack of understanding what a science actually is. Study of 1 has same meaning like a conclusion "Person won lottery and changed their life. Maybe we should all buy lottery tickets?".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @06:38PM (3 children)
Nothing in a living organism happens "spontaneously". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis [wikipedia.org]
The misused word is merely a shorthand for "no juicy grants from pharma for investigating this".
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 15 2021, @08:25PM (2 children)
I don't think you understand the term. You probably think it means something like "without prior cause" - but that's nonsense. Nothing anywhere in the universe happens without cause - with the possible exception of nuclear decay and virtual particle creation, and we probably just don't understand the causes for those.
Definition of Spontaneous: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous [merriam-webster.com]
Several of those definitions align quite well with the medical usage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @09:24PM (1 child)
I don't think you have the capability to think. The capability to copy and paste things you do not understand, is NOT a useful substitute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @11:50PM
Ok, then what is the cause if it's not spontaneous?
Is it a moral failure on the part of people who die from tumors? Are people whose tumors regress more virtuous?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @07:12PM
A study of 1 is almost useless. In this case, now there is more incentive for a larger sample size and properly controlled study than existed before. That is all.
Of course anyone seeing this and saying "to hell with medical treatment, I'll use CBD oil instead" would be insane. But there are lots of insane people out there...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday October 15 2021, @10:41PM (1 child)
N=2: https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/10/e244195#ref-22 [bmj.com]
compiling...
(Score: 1) by dohzer on Monday October 18 2021, @02:11AM
The plural of anecdote is 'anecdotes', not 'data'.