Can Cannabis Cancel Cancer?

Windsor is buzzing recently about a young child, diagnosed with leukaemia, who was taken away from his parents who balked at being told that he needed chemotherapy immediately and they were wanting, instead, to look into hemp oil.

Here’s my first, and albeit controversial, point.

As much as us parents don’t want to hear it, our children are not our property. We cannot do whatever we want with them. They are individuals who are under protection of the state (read: society) they live in.

We are given provisional custody over them as long we abide by the guidelines of minimal levels of care, which includes not withholding the best, scientifically sound, medical treatments.

I am not a fan of the Children’s Aid Society, having dealt with them before but, in this case, I feel they have done the right thing, as emotional as I feel against them.

Social media is a great way of spreading information. Sadly, a lot of that information is either misinterpreted or completely incorrect. In the case of cannabis as a cure for cancer, we have both.
I will try to make this as short as possible as there is decades worth of information to squeeze into a single article.

Cannabinoids is an all-encompassing term to label numerous complex natural and synthetic chemicals that lock onto the receptors, or protein molecules, on cell surfaces. The two most commonly known are delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and endocannabinoids.

There are two main types of cannabinoid receptors: CB1, which is mostly found in the nervous system, and CB2, mostly found in the immune system. A third type, known as GPR, is currently being looked into more as very little is known about them.

Cannabinoids, both natural and synthetic, are being researched by hundreds of scientists around the globe as to their effects, both harmful and helpful. They are looking into the effects on many various diseases including cancer. This is done through the International Cannabinoid Research Society.

There are around 200 different types of cancers for humans. Each of these cancers has different causes, different genetics, different prognoses, and different pathophysiology. It should be understood that cancer is not one disease. There is no one cure for cancer and therefore any article, meme, or video claiming something is a cure for cancer should immediately raise a sceptical red flag.

So do cannabinoids cure cancer?

No. But they are very interesting chemicals and show some promise in various areas.

In research with deadly diseases, it is very hard to study the effects of substances in the human body, for a number of reasons. The first is that lab research is not done in the body, so any result that is promising is highly inconclusive as a collection of cells in a petri dish, or a rat, are not human beings. This must be kept in mind, as well, when studies are cited showing a cure.

Secondly, in human trials, you cannot ethically have a control or placebo group, in many instances. To prevent a person from having the best course of action we have evidence for, and to give them a placebo or none at all, is a detriment to their health. The risk is too high. Thus, many human trials are done with terminally ill patients, in very advance stages.

Here too, we do not have a chance for controls and, therefore, the results are not deemed conclusive.
All in all, there are many variables to tackle and, in turn, research moves much slower than people expect it to. It’s not easy and it’s painstakingly long, but it is the best way to achieve the clearest results we can.

Cannabinoid lab research has shown some positive results, such as triggering cell death, preventing cell division, reducing the chances of cancer spreading, and preventing blood vessels from reaching into tumours. The best results from lab and animal studies have come from purified THC, CBD (cannibidol), and JWH-133, a synthetic cannabinoid.

There is also evidence that cannibinoids have an undesirable effect on cancer, as well. They can also cause a tumor to grow and various other effects depending on dosage, as well as preventing the immune system from destroying tumor cells, and even cells developing a resistance.

Clinical trials for curing cancer are in short supply. One study, at the time of writing I could only find one, involved nine patients. This, of course, is a small sample size, so it is limited in its conclusions.

Here highly purified THC was given directly into the brain via a tube. Eight patients showed some kind of response. One patient showed no response at all. All patients died within a year.

Without a control group, though, it’s impossible to tell whether or not it helped extend their lives.

Most cannabinoid clinical trials have concerned its effects on helping with the side effects of other cancer treatments. Research has been done into helping with vomiting, nausea, and dizziness, appetite stimulation, pain management, anxiety, and sleep. Although most seem to be relatively positive, they often do suggest negative side effects.

Most everything else I found claiming a cancer cure with cannibinoids was simply anecdotes and other unverified stories. There was a published case-study of a 14 year old, but being a single person study and with a mixture of compounds, we can’t conclude anything from something so limited.
Quite simply put, the scientific data and research is just not there.

There are a few early stage trials currently underway with patients who have advanced cancers. We shall wait to hear the results.

To conclude, if someone chooses to use unproven alternatives like cannabis/cannabinoids and reject conventional treatment, they could miss out on treatment that may lengthen, or even save, their lives. They could miss out on spending precious time with loved ones.

Also, many of these alternative choices are not covered by insurance and thus come at a high financial cost. Cannabinoids are considered relatively safe, but they are also not without risk.
Until there is clear evidence, it would be best to use conventional treatments.

The Mosquito Vampire Diaries

From an article I wrote a few years ago:

Summer is here and so are the mosquitos. Every year we humans try our best to ward off these little vampires. Every year we get bombarded with social media memes, emails and news reports about how to protect ourselves. We are offered a wide array of options from home-made concoctions, to sprays we can buy at a pharmacy. So what works? What is safe?

First off, let’s look at what attracts mosquitos to humans. Skeeters are attracted to warmth, body odour, moisture and the exhalation of carbon dioxide. Yes, mosquitos can smell carbon dioxide. So what we want issomething that can block their ability to sense those things from us.

DEET has been around for 50 years and is one of the most studied repellent ingredients. It is the most widely used as it is the most effective. According to the New England Journal of Medicine,
"DEET is far less toxic than many people believe. Adverse effects, though documented, are infrequent and are generally associated with gross overuse of the product. The risk of DEET-related adverse effects pales in comparison with the risk of acquiring vector-borne infection in places where such diseases are endemic."

It is interesting to note though that not all mosquitos are created equal, and DEET does not seem highly effective against the mosquito that transmits malaria.

Next we have a whole slew of items that work from varying degrees of “somewhat” to “almost not at all” according to sources. Even the most effective of these, though, pales in comparison to the effectiveness of DEET. These include herbal oils, garlic, and Avon Skin So Soft.

Garlic oil rubbed on the skin, has been shown to have repellent properties, although the smell may also repel humans as well. Some people claim that eating garlic will do the same. In various studies though it has shown to have no effect at all when ingested.

Other herbal oils such as cinnamon, lemon, citronella and castor (mixed with a carrier oil such as olive or sunflower) have been shown to be somewhat effective. The problem though is that these are not necessarily safer. It is often misconception that "natural" is safer.

Avon Skin-So-Soft is a bath oil that has been claimed by some users to work. In a study done by Mark Fradin and Jonathon Day of the University of Florida, they looked at the effectiveness of 17 marketed mosquito repellents including the Avon product. They found Off! Deep Woods with DEET effectiveness lasted 302 minutes while Skin-So-Soft only lasted about 10 minutes. Avon claims their product lasts 3 hours. Consumer Reports reported the product working 1 hour. With such varied reports, it may be wisest to assume an average of up to 1 hour and 20 minutes.

Bug zappers are a common backyard sight. Generally, though, mosquitoes (and other biting insects) make up less than 1 percent of the bugs zapped in these. Many beneficial insects, on the other hand, do get zapped like dragonflies which prey on mosquitoes. Also bats and colonial purple martins will eat mosquitos, but that only makes up a small part of their natural diet.

A popular social media meme suggests using Listerine or dish soap in bowls around the yard or spraying around the home. These are supposed to knock the little critters dead. According to Snopes.com these are pretty much useless.

So it can be a little confusing as to what to use.

Obviously DEET is the best choice for safety, cost and effectiveness. But if you are concerned about that, some of the herbal oils may work for you. To learn more contact your local health unit and follow guidelines such as those listed at Health Canada.

Have a safe and happy summer!

Breyers Ice Cream Meltdown

This guy again. Last year it was the non-melting cheese. This year, non-melting ice cream. If he did a little research, he'd find that he's a few years behind the hysteria already (look up the non-melting ice cream sandwich), but I guess he makes the old new again and gets the youtube hits (although he disables comments on his video because he's probably afraid of a little science understanding might ruin his reputation ;)   )

Within the first minute of this almost 11-minute video I wanted to turn it off as I could see where it was going. Not once did he make any effort to research and find out anything about the ingredients and he lies right off the bat.

He compares Breyers Family Classic Vanilla Frozen Dessert with Farmers Chocolate Ice Cream, Mr. Christie Oreo Ice Cream, and Scotsburn Mocha Fudge. He claims that Breyers and the Oreo ones are made with modified milk ingredients (which he claims as SCARY!!! but never explains why, but I assume because he doesn't understand basic concepts and is just fear-mongering) and that the Farmers and Scotsburn do not as they have milk and cream. This is absolutely untrue as Scotsburn does have modified milk ingredients:   http://scotsburn.com/page/branded_products/category/ice_cream/product_line/premium_ice_cream/product/0_63124_15515_5/
I had trouble finding the Christie Oreo ingredients online, but ironically did find the Breyers Oreo which did not have modified milk, but I will assume he is telling the truth that the one he used did.
Farmers Brand does not list their ingredients online, although from the pic, it looks a little more than just milk and cream. http://www.farmersdairy.ca/pages/products/IceCream/1.5L-Chocolate.php
For comparison here is the Breyers brand http://www.breyers.ca/product/detail/139648/vanilla

OK, so he's not being honest to start with.

What is modified milk ingredients? Well this could be many things. It can include casein, caseinates, whey products, yogurt, sour cream, cultured buttermilk, ultrafiltered milk, milk protein concentrate just to name a few. They are also called natural milk constituents as they are in a different state than what originally found. Doesn't sound so scary when you look into it.

You'll note as well that Breyers does not call it ice cream, but a frozen dessert. That may concern some, but it doesn't concern me.

He sets up his "experiment." The first thing I will note that there isn't much to this. I wouldn't even call it an experiment. He doesn't control various factors and he only does this once. A proper experiment would purchase many tubs in case one tub had a quality control flaw. The fact that all the other products had chocolate and the Breyers product did not does not make for a valid comparison and could in fact skew the results.

I have to give credit though where credit is due. He mentioned that his tub of ice cream did not have plastic on its top (but he did note that other Breyers products did). I must say it's weird though that he also mentions that the lot of that particular product did not have plastic on it. That means he opened every one. Now this is a valid concern if Breyers is not providing consumer protection on this product. I am not sure if this was a quality issue with that shipment or if it that is a normal procedure.

So does the Breyers Frozen Dessert not melt? Yes, it resists melting. This and some of the other products contain guar gum and cellulose gum (both naturally derived products by the way). These are plant-based stabilizers to prevent the products from becoming what nutritional scientist Grace Yek says "gross and crunchy." It gives ice cream a creamy texture and helps prevent the formation of ice crystals. But there is another ingredient that is my best guess as to why it did not melt (at least not in the conventional way).

He shows that there is a liquid at the bottom of the bowl of the Breyers product. So after a long enough time it begins to separate. I assume this liquid is probably the hydrogenated coconut oil separating. He also leaves this for 10 days. It's not surprising that it would smell rancid. This could also be part of the reason why after 10 days this had significant mold (or what appeared to be mold) growth. The guy does state that he doesn't know what it is. But he jumps the gun in calling it poison. If you don't know what something is, you can't claim it to be something without verification. That's just dumb and dishonest.

Now do I fancy eating frozen hydrogenated coconut oil? Not really. I would not be afraid of the Breyers product though, just as I would not be afraid of imitation cheese made from oil. Yeah, you probably are better off (especially in the taste department) eating something else as it has more nutrients (the Breyers product has no iron for example), but occasionally as a treat it would be ok.

The Horse's Ass episode 1

It's been a while, but I have new breathe
Check out this video of a new series called the Horse's Ass

http://youtu.be/X72nKZnQ3tY