As opposed to the last 90 years where the media blatantly lied and ruined millions of lives, it's not that sensationalized. Also, 1 in 2 people get some form of cancer in their lifetime, ttyl.
I have to agree with you on that.
I’ve been on this rock for a while, hundreds of people have died in jail on ridiculously small charges.
If it can help anyone, in any way.
I really don’t care how you sensationalize it, just fucking stop locking people up for it.
This isn't supposed to be political theater. Just because bad "science" was paraded around in the past doesn't make countering it with bad science any less of an embarrassment.
Except... this is a Bad Title given to a shitty article about REAL science, so, the fact that you twisted that causes me to assume you have a bias against cannabis, which is just as foolish as if the government had made pacific yew illegal because people of color embraced it in the past, and you were vehemently against any science exploring the possible medical value of the compounds within the yew. So, you're right that this shouldn't be political theater, but it becomes that when you embrace an age old, proven moronic racist bias against marijuana. PLANTS.. THEY ARE PLANTS you *** of course they might have some compounds with medical value.
Your pre assumptions of people's definitions gives miscommunications as to your interpretation of our language. This is less about the topic than it's about the science method and how it's presented.
It should just be more common these days to approach these things with less sensational judgment.
If it sounds like bullshit and probably is, it doesn't always help to chime in--just move on. If it sounds intriguing, work on it.
The history shows us we shouldn't really call anything ridiculous though--because sometimes its not. And sometimes even perception is more impactful than reality, when we start mixing in cultural norms with certain sciences.
Well you need to start somewhere to develop targeted treatments such as - https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-health/news/article/4883/world-first-trial-tests-cannabis-based-drug-on-aggressive-brain-tumours Why you hung up on the extract part. Lots of medications where extracts of natural plants before synthetic versions were made. I dont think any one is saying you can just rub some bud on a tumour and it will go away.
The Petri dish thing is really common though. Look at the weird right wing online spaces around Hydroxychloroquine "treatment" for Covid. One study shows that dowsing the Covid virus in a bath of Hydroxychloroquine kills it (a fatal dose if scaled up to human size), and the media runs with it, conspiracies start, people take it instead of the standard of care, and people die.
Sure, testing things starts with large, sweeping measures; but we really need to stop publishing these garbage stories with bad headlines that mislead people when the research hasn't even really began yet.
OK, I think this is being a little unfair. The question is whether it kills you or not. Cannabinoids are very fat soluble and absorbable into cells, so it may be worth seeing the viability of various routes of administration.
Bleach also kills those cells. Shit, plain old table salt would also kill them. The point is that practically ANYTHING will kill cells in a petri dish, but cells in a petri dish are a million miles away from actual cancer in an actual human.
To be clear, the outrage here is that the headline said cannabis, but the study used a specific cannabis extract - is that right? That's what you're calling sensationalized media bullshit? Good grief.
In any event, the article has this to say:
>A cannabis extract has been found to have a "deadly" effect on melanoma skin cancer cells, according to a new study.
>
>Researchers from Charles Darwin University (CDU) and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) studied PHEC-66, an extract from Cannabis sativa, and how it reacts to the MM418-C1, MM329, and MM96L melanoma cell lines. The study, in a laboratory setting, revealed that the cannabis extract interacts with receptors on certain melanoma cells.
>
>Melanoma is responsible for more than 80 per cent of skin cancer-related deaths
>
>Biomedical scientist Nazim Nassar from CDU said: "The damage to the melanoma cell prevents it from dividing into new cells, and instead begins a programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis." Whether this works in a living animal body is another better, which would need to be investigated outside of a laboratory.
Unless I'm wrong on this, the extract isn't patentable. If it isn't patentable, the chances of this going through FDA trials is very slim.
I like how you ignored the "in a petri dish" portion of their statement.
Maybe the sensationalized media bullshit they're referring to is another in vitro study being presented by the media as not that in the sensationalized headline.
Isnt melanoma localized on your skin anyways? Im not saying their arent differences between petri dish and actual human, but isnt there a better chance that some type of localized injectable could help destroy melanoma and therefore, the petri dish example is at least closer to reality than say, a brain cancer therapy?
A petri dish can accurately reflect melanoma in the early stages, sure, but those stages are also wherein melanoma is extremely easy to treat and has a high survival rate.
Once it's in the later stages, the situation is more complicated and again, can't be replicated by a petri dish.
It's another aspect of the sensationalism, overstating the importance of the discovery despite the fact that basically everything that works in vitro on melanoma will work in the early stages.
Doesn't say anything about the later stages, which is the part everybody cares about.
Well, it's the ramblings of someone who's more sensitive than they are curious.
It also derails a better conversation. For example, a question we may want to ask is if this extract can't be patented and won't likely find FDA approval, do people try to isolate this extract and try it in supplement form? How common is this specific extract found in cannabis and at what concentrations? If it's found in commonly consumed cannabis, maybe it's already known to be safe at certain concentrations.
How is this any different to the hundreds of other studies published over the last thirty years that say exactly the same thing?
Does it address the molecular dimensions and characteristics of cannabinoids and why they are not much use in practical terms except for easily accessible cancers as they can’t physically get to the tumour? That would be interesting
Yeah but it's a new study with positive findings so it almost feels like it's being discounted here because it's cannabis. The irony being every argument stating the inverse. That it's stoners blindly celebrating.
But it is stoners blindly celebrating. I See a News article about "the cure for cancer has been found" or some similar nonsense every few days. Usually nobody pays them any attention but as soon as it's Cannabis we should pretend it is some big revelation? Why?
This study is treated exactly like any other of it's kind, only that we're forced to do so publicly.
I think you should've just poked a hole somewhere around the kidney and should have applied the smoke to your organs directly for maximal effect, but I'm no doctor!
Because people will extrapolate what the headline says to "It cures cancer. Period." That sort of thinking is why xkcd's "handgun kills cancer in a petri dish" comic has relevancy.
So is this according to the study. Shame they didn't do the same level of characterization for the non-transformed cells. Also curious how that therapeutic window looks with non-transformed cells in 3D culture because potency drops a lot
That killing cancer cells in a dish is trivial and should not be hyped up as evidence of a breakthrough until there's supporting evidence of safety and efficacy in animals
I assumed with a PhD in biochemistry you’d know there is a significant difference between an NT interacting with a receptor and preventing cell division and fucking bleach, right?
Cannabis is an unbelievable medicine, but it comes at the cost of waking you up and many people would rather just die than face reality. I don't blame them.
When I was younger, the amount of stupid stoners i've encountered that seemed super persistent on the fact that "you don't get cancer from smoking weed" & the good old "weed kills cancer" bullshit, it also seems to kill their brain cells.
Another sensational title for a less sensational piece of news.
jaymickef | 2 years ago
If only anyone with cancer had ever thought to try it.
fred_lincoln | 2 years ago
So a cannabis EXTRACT kills melanoma cells in a petri dish.
This sub should be called r/NoActualScienceJustSensationalizedMediaBullshit
mojoegojoe | 2 years ago
So sad that's not lit
Puzzleheaded_Bank648 | 2 years ago
As opposed to the last 90 years where the media blatantly lied and ruined millions of lives, it's not that sensationalized. Also, 1 in 2 people get some form of cancer in their lifetime, ttyl.
Flakynews2525 | 2 years ago
I have to agree with you on that. I’ve been on this rock for a while, hundreds of people have died in jail on ridiculously small charges. If it can help anyone, in any way. I really don’t care how you sensationalize it, just fucking stop locking people up for it.
mojoegojoe | 2 years ago
That's the point of the sub. Science isn't a opinion but a structure to form a opinion that's most effective and valid for all calculation.
djdefekt | 2 years ago
bad bot
superworking | 2 years ago
This isn't supposed to be political theater. Just because bad "science" was paraded around in the past doesn't make countering it with bad science any less of an embarrassment.
Puzzleheaded_Bank648 | 2 years ago
Except... this is a Bad Title given to a shitty article about REAL science, so, the fact that you twisted that causes me to assume you have a bias against cannabis, which is just as foolish as if the government had made pacific yew illegal because people of color embraced it in the past, and you were vehemently against any science exploring the possible medical value of the compounds within the yew. So, you're right that this shouldn't be political theater, but it becomes that when you embrace an age old, proven moronic racist bias against marijuana. PLANTS.. THEY ARE PLANTS you *** of course they might have some compounds with medical value.
mojoegojoe | 2 years ago
Your pre assumptions of people's definitions gives miscommunications as to your interpretation of our language. This is less about the topic than it's about the science method and how it's presented.
Puzzleheaded_Bank648 | 2 years ago
Do you mean the scientific method, or maybe the methodology used in this experiment? Smoke a joint stop reading the bible.
mojoegojoe | 2 years ago
Oh if only your knew lil one
Ashleyempire | 2 years ago
We all do, we are right you and your bible. No
mojoegojoe | 2 years ago
Lol net surfer
Beardamus | 2 years ago
Smoking marijuana leads to increased lung cancer risk
Downvoted for simply stating the scientific consensus. This place really is just a psuedo science hell hole like that other dude was saying.
Cannabis has many health benefits, smoking it leads to increased lung cancer risk.
kn728570 | 2 years ago
You’re being downvoted because your point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand
MalakaiRey | 2 years ago
It should just be more common these days to approach these things with less sensational judgment.
If it sounds like bullshit and probably is, it doesn't always help to chime in--just move on. If it sounds intriguing, work on it.
The history shows us we shouldn't really call anything ridiculous though--because sometimes its not. And sometimes even perception is more impactful than reality, when we start mixing in cultural norms with certain sciences.
Rigorous_Threshold | 2 years ago
Isn’t it technically 1 in 1 people
SmallBol | 2 years ago
Very un-lit, dude
Icommentor | 2 years ago
(Discretely puts the bong back on the shelf)
Devil25_Apollo25 | 2 years ago
(Changes mind, gets it back down.)
rizlar09 | 2 years ago
Well you need to start somewhere to develop targeted treatments such as - https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-health/news/article/4883/world-first-trial-tests-cannabis-based-drug-on-aggressive-brain-tumours Why you hung up on the extract part. Lots of medications where extracts of natural plants before synthetic versions were made. I dont think any one is saying you can just rub some bud on a tumour and it will go away.
FuzzzyRam | 2 years ago
The Petri dish thing is really common though. Look at the weird right wing online spaces around Hydroxychloroquine "treatment" for Covid. One study shows that dowsing the Covid virus in a bath of Hydroxychloroquine kills it (a fatal dose if scaled up to human size), and the media runs with it, conspiracies start, people take it instead of the standard of care, and people die.
Sure, testing things starts with large, sweeping measures; but we really need to stop publishing these garbage stories with bad headlines that mislead people when the research hasn't even really began yet.
politehornyposter | 2 years ago
OK, I think this is being a little unfair. The question is whether it kills you or not. Cannabinoids are very fat soluble and absorbable into cells, so it may be worth seeing the viability of various routes of administration.
fred_lincoln | 2 years ago
Bleach also kills those cells. Shit, plain old table salt would also kill them. The point is that practically ANYTHING will kill cells in a petri dish, but cells in a petri dish are a million miles away from actual cancer in an actual human.
Snaz5 | 2 years ago
I bet if i pissed into a petri dish it’d kill melanoma cells; you think people would pay me for itv
Idle_Redditing | 2 years ago
How high of a level of the active ingredients would be needed in a human bloodstream to kill a tumor in a human body?
However high of a level is needed I would gladly attempt to reach it. I have a bowl, chillum, steamroller, two bongs and a vape.
Kostrabbit | 2 years ago
Look up Rick Simpson Oil he's been doing it for quite some time now
TopTierTuna | 2 years ago
To be clear, the outrage here is that the headline said cannabis, but the study used a specific cannabis extract - is that right? That's what you're calling sensationalized media bullshit? Good grief.
In any event, the article has this to say:
>A cannabis extract has been found to have a "deadly" effect on melanoma skin cancer cells, according to a new study.
>
>Researchers from Charles Darwin University (CDU) and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) studied PHEC-66, an extract from Cannabis sativa, and how it reacts to the MM418-C1, MM329, and MM96L melanoma cell lines. The study, in a laboratory setting, revealed that the cannabis extract interacts with receptors on certain melanoma cells.
>
>Melanoma is responsible for more than 80 per cent of skin cancer-related deaths
>
>Biomedical scientist Nazim Nassar from CDU said: "The damage to the melanoma cell prevents it from dividing into new cells, and instead begins a programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis." Whether this works in a living animal body is another better, which would need to be investigated outside of a laboratory.
Unless I'm wrong on this, the extract isn't patentable. If it isn't patentable, the chances of this going through FDA trials is very slim.
Mendigom | 2 years ago
I like how you ignored the "in a petri dish" portion of their statement.
Maybe the sensationalized media bullshit they're referring to is another in vitro study being presented by the media as not that in the sensationalized headline.
debacol | 2 years ago
Isnt melanoma localized on your skin anyways? Im not saying their arent differences between petri dish and actual human, but isnt there a better chance that some type of localized injectable could help destroy melanoma and therefore, the petri dish example is at least closer to reality than say, a brain cancer therapy?
Mendigom | 2 years ago
A petri dish can accurately reflect melanoma in the early stages, sure, but those stages are also wherein melanoma is extremely easy to treat and has a high survival rate.
Once it's in the later stages, the situation is more complicated and again, can't be replicated by a petri dish.
It's another aspect of the sensationalism, overstating the importance of the discovery despite the fact that basically everything that works in vitro on melanoma will work in the early stages.
Doesn't say anything about the later stages, which is the part everybody cares about.
TopTierTuna | 2 years ago
Well, it's the ramblings of someone who's more sensitive than they are curious.
It also derails a better conversation. For example, a question we may want to ask is if this extract can't be patented and won't likely find FDA approval, do people try to isolate this extract and try it in supplement form? How common is this specific extract found in cannabis and at what concentrations? If it's found in commonly consumed cannabis, maybe it's already known to be safe at certain concentrations.
SnausagesGalore | 2 years ago
Pretty much all the Reddit subs are like this. Filled with idiot teenagers who don’t have the first clue about actual science.
Go check out the biohacking sub sometime. If you want your head to hurt.
They’re currently discussing eating avocados as the most scientific way to reverse facial skin aging.
Snoo14640 | 2 years ago
Still seems like a positive thing but I guess someone has to be "that guy"
BogdanD | 2 years ago
So does bleach
DSetZman | 2 years ago
Seriously
Hirotrum | 2 years ago
If scientists do not regularly put out sensationalized bullshit, they lose their jobs
Science is fundamentally a much slower process than what its funders demand.
brereddit | 2 years ago
No actual science? Explain to us how anything at all becomes an FDA approved therapeutic. Is preclinical research not scientific? Pfffftt!
cannarchista | 2 years ago
How is this any different to the hundreds of other studies published over the last thirty years that say exactly the same thing?
Does it address the molecular dimensions and characteristics of cannabinoids and why they are not much use in practical terms except for easily accessible cancers as they can’t physically get to the tumour? That would be interesting
SpamAdBot91874 | 2 years ago
No shit. Cannabis extract comes from cannabis. Don't think anyone assumed they are carressing the cancer cells with pot leaves.
VVurmHat | 2 years ago
My farts kill cancer cells in petri dish
uberfunstuff | 2 years ago
Here is a more rigorous introduction to the concept.
https://medriva.com/health/groundbreaking-study-suggests-cannabis-extract-could-revolutionize-melanoma-treatment
aloafaloft | 2 years ago
This subreddit dude, I gotta leave this.
FloofilyBooples | 2 years ago
You gotta pass that shit on the left hand side bruh.
aloafaloft | 2 years ago
Lol
PartlyProfessional | 2 years ago
I am using apollo (side loaded)
And just remembered that I can blacklist a word, Apollo was really the best Reddit app ever
Now I will blacklist “cannabis” and live
no-mad | 2 years ago
Stoners without reading the article: I fukin knew it.
kbat82 | 2 years ago
I'm not a stoner, but I read the article. What's the issue besides the sensational headline?
Independent_Error404 | 2 years ago
Just because Something Kills cells in a Petri dish doesn't make it a good Treatment for cancer. If it we're that easy everything would treat cancer.
kbat82 | 2 years ago
Yeah but it's a new study with positive findings so it almost feels like it's being discounted here because it's cannabis. The irony being every argument stating the inverse. That it's stoners blindly celebrating.
Independent_Error404 | 2 years ago
But it is stoners blindly celebrating. I See a News article about "the cure for cancer has been found" or some similar nonsense every few days. Usually nobody pays them any attention but as soon as it's Cannabis we should pretend it is some big revelation? Why?
This study is treated exactly like any other of it's kind, only that we're forced to do so publicly.
kn728570 | 2 years ago
TIL reacting positively to promising experiment results means I’m a stoner blindly celebrating
Fun_Philosophy_6238 | 2 years ago
Your body is an intelligent petri dish. It will send the particles where they need to go.
probablythrowaway71 | 2 years ago
so if I eat brownies will I be immortal or what
jellojohnson | 2 years ago
Apoptosis. Cannabinoids make cancer cells kill themselves. Known this for over a decade in the medical Marijuana industry.
InTheHeatOfTheNoche | 2 years ago
I've been toking for 30 years and had kidney cancer last year.
Qui3tSt0rnm | 2 years ago
You need to ingest it orally.
InTheHeatOfTheNoche | 2 years ago
Well I tried to smoke out of my butthole once but it didn't go great.
laser50 | 2 years ago
I think you should've just poked a hole somewhere around the kidney and should have applied the smoke to your organs directly for maximal effect, but I'm no doctor!
InTheHeatOfTheNoche | 2 years ago
Well it's a little late now bro. Paging my urologist.
unknownpoltroon | 2 years ago
Oh for fucks sake.
And it's still a schedule 1
Tylendal | 2 years ago
What did Bob Marley die of, again?
For sure, interesting interactions with cancer cells should be looked into, but it's a huge leap from there to "cures cancer".
politehornyposter | 2 years ago
Blood infection from an infected wound he refused to amputate or something like that lol.
Tylendal | 2 years ago
...it was melanoma.
(That he refused to amputate his toe for.)
VentiMochaTRex | 2 years ago
Wow! I thought it was most of his leg. I get that it was for religious reasons but I always thought he didn’t want to give up soccer either
politehornyposter | 2 years ago
There we go. I thought he got it from a cut playing Soccer or something lol. Urban legends.
Holy shit my man's was too mad righteous to amputate his toe off.
Qui3tSt0rnm | 2 years ago
Skin cancer can be caused by infection.
rizlar09 | 2 years ago
He had cancer in his toe and refused to have it amputated for religious reasons and it spread, killing him.
monkeyeatfig | 2 years ago
🎶 Excuse me while I take my spliff and make an extract for topical use out of it. 🎶
rizlar09 | 2 years ago
Dont think any medical study is advocating recreational use as a valid treatment.
Tylendal | 2 years ago
No, but that (along with some classic "they're suppressing the cure!!!") is what far too many people will take away from this headline.
rizlar09 | 2 years ago
Well they are obviously not suppressing anything if they are actively studying its value in the treatment of cancer, no?
Why would most people take that from the headline and article?
Tylendal | 2 years ago
Because people will extrapolate what the headline says to "It cures cancer. Period." That sort of thinking is why xkcd's "handgun kills cancer in a petri dish" comic has relevancy.
barronunderbite | 2 years ago
Rick Simpson oil. Should have been main stream since the 90’s
Gluske | 2 years ago
So does bleach. So does a handgun.
ThereIsATheory | 2 years ago
Should have included a link to the xkcd comic to avoid the downvotes.
No-Mail-8565 | 2 years ago
You got me at handgun
Deceiver999 | 2 years ago
But try using them on your face
Qui3tSt0rnm | 2 years ago
Yeah but those are both deadly to human tissue as well.
Gluske | 2 years ago
So is this according to the study. Shame they didn't do the same level of characterization for the non-transformed cells. Also curious how that therapeutic window looks with non-transformed cells in 3D culture because potency drops a lot
laser50 | 2 years ago
Death is one of the most efficient ways of stopping cancer?!
Luklear | 2 years ago
What is your point?
Gluske | 2 years ago
That killing cancer cells in a dish is trivial and should not be hyped up as evidence of a breakthrough until there's supporting evidence of safety and efficacy in animals
kn728570 | 2 years ago
I assumed with a PhD in biochemistry you’d know there is a significant difference between an NT interacting with a receptor and preventing cell division and fucking bleach, right?
korn4357 | 2 years ago
But they talked about cannabis not bleach.
einsibongo | 2 years ago
Does it kill the cancer in vape pens and nicotine oral pouches..?
Asking for a friend.
At some point this is just marketing, right?
probablythrowaway71 | 2 years ago
is there cancer in nicotine oral pouches?
einsibongo | 2 years ago
Probably, bunch of synthetic material wet with various chemical juices and powders.
stratamaniac | 2 years ago
Is there anything cannabis can’t do?
TScottFitzgerald | 2 years ago
It's called cannabis not can'tnabis
Publius82 | 2 years ago
Get me off the couch.
New_Lojack | 2 years ago
Bring my dad back from home
murderspice | 2 years ago
Lord jesus it cures cancer too. They should put it in the water.
NefariousWaltzing | 2 years ago
That's how Rome fell.
probablythrowaway71 | 2 years ago
Rome was trippin
Fit_Menu8877 | 2 years ago
there is no evidence it cures any cancer lol
wheresthebody | 2 years ago
Hotbox the planet!
shortingredditstock | 2 years ago
Can we just study snoop Dogg?
ohbillyberu | 2 years ago
Okay- I'ma let you have this, but if you get a chance look up what Bon Marley died from...
Thecrawsome | 2 years ago
Shit clickbait
olisoundbole | 2 years ago
I mean how? Bob Marley died of cancer haha! Just joking btw.
Heyatoms1 | 2 years ago
You know what else kills cancer in a Petrie dish? A gun.. 🫠
mywifemademedothis2 | 2 years ago
What do we want? Bigger doors!
Emotional_Pie7396 | 2 years ago
Didn’t work for my mother
Concentrati0n | 2 years ago
"If bleach kills cancer why don't scientists just inject people with bleach? Are they stupid?"
Kostrabbit | 2 years ago
So Rick Simpson should be getting an apology any day now then huh?
triggz | 2 years ago
Cannabis is an unbelievable medicine, but it comes at the cost of waking you up and many people would rather just die than face reality. I don't blame them.
Inert_Oregon | 2 years ago
So does bleach.
Garbage study (at least with the framing it was given here), garbage post.
laser50 | 2 years ago
Oh god...
When I was younger, the amount of stupid stoners i've encountered that seemed super persistent on the fact that "you don't get cancer from smoking weed" & the good old "weed kills cancer" bullshit, it also seems to kill their brain cells.
Another sensational title for a less sensational piece of news.