Miracle Drug & Cancer Cure
"The New Scientist is reporting that researchers working at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada have discovered that an existing drug called dichloroacetate (DCA) is effective in killing cancer cells, while leaving the host's healthy cells unharmed.
DCA has already been used for years to treat metabolic disorders, and is known to be fairly safe. Why is the mainstream news media failing to report on this potential breakthrough?
The University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have set up a site with more info, where you can also donate to support future clinical trials.
Pot, Cures Lung Cancer!!!
Friday, May 26, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Researchers surprised to find no link between marijuana, lung
cancer/Study's findings apply even to heavy pot smokers
Marc Kaufman, Washington Post
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that
smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Dr. Donald
Tashkin, a UCLA pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between
marijuana use and lung cancer and that the association would be more
positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no
association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used
Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous.
Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially
harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than
previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing
chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However,
marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging
cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's
National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had
lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer
matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco
and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lit up more than 22,000
times,
while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000
marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana
smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had
to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said.
"Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many
confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have
real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had
hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis
of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals and the fact that
marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their
lungs
longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals
for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found
that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked
to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found,
the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society
International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among
people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older
than that were generally not exposed to marijuana use in their youth, when
itis most frequently tried.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/26/MNGAKJ2S481.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Comments