------ Forwarded Message
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:16:32 -0400
Subject: CANNIBIS AND CANCER
HA HA!
Pot Shots
Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
By FRED GARDNER
Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause
cancer of the
lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at
this year's
meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming
from
Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled
drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get
funding from
the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years,
Tashkin's lab
at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that
marijuana smoke
wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and
colleagues
have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke,
biopsied and
made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the
molecular
changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug
Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin
himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a
study in
which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients
and found
that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate
or die
earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question,
only two
-involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana
smoking
causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by
conducting a
large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled
study.
"Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy,
longterm use of
marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers."
The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided
Tashkin's team
with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with
cancer (611
lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal).
Interviewers
collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco,
alcohol and
other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family
history of
cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to
marijuana was
measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were
found based
on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used
marijuana,
31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs,
2% had
used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin
controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of
marijuana
use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios
turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control
group's
chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint
year, the
estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .
74; for
10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs.
The
estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10
j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for
more than
60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for
the other
cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no
suggestion of a
dose response." The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a
very
potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold
greater
risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a
day."
Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal
cancer
and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we
failed to
observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential
confounders."
There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San
Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the
microphone:
"You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category
[marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like
there was a
negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on
that?"
"Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost
consistently, and in one category that relationship was
significant, but I
think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the
conclusion
that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an
unreasonable hypothesis."
Abrams had results of his own to report at the ICRS meeting. He
and his
colleagues at San Francisco General Hospital had conducted a
randomized,
placebo-controlled study involving 50 patients with HIV-related
peripheral
neuropathy. Over the course of five days, patients recorded their
pain
levels in a diary after smoking either NIDA-supplied marijuana
cigarettes
or cigarettes from which the THC had been extracted. About 25%
didn't know
or guessed wrong as to whether they were smoking the placebos, which
suggests that the blinding worked. Abrams requested that his
results not be
described in detail prior to publication in a peer-reviewed medical
journal,
but we can generalize: they exceeded expectations, and show marijuana
providing pain relief comparable to Gabapentin, the most widely used
treatment for a condition that afflicts some 30% of patients with
HIV.
To a questioner who bemoaned the difficulty of "separating the
high from
the clinical benefits," Abrams replied: "I'm an oncologist as
well as an
AIDS doctor and I don't think that a drug that creates euphoria in
patients
with terminal diseases is having an adverse effect." His study was
funded
by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis
Research.
* * *
The 15th annual meeting of the ICRS was held at the Clearwater,
Florida,
Hilton, June 24-27. Almost 300 scientists attended. R. Stephen
Ellis, MD,
of San Francisco, was the sole clinician from California. Los Angeles
Farmacy operator Mike Ommaha and therapist/cultivator Pat Humphrey
showed
up to audit the proceedings... Some of the younger European
scientists
expressed consternation over the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling
and the
vote in Congress re-enforcing the cannabis prohibition. "How can they
dispute that it has medical effect?" an investigator working in
Germany
asked us earnestly. She had come to give a talk on "the role of
different
neuronal populations in the pharmacological actions of delta-9
THC." For
most ICRS members, the holy grail is a legal synthetic drug that
exerts the
medicinal effects of the prohibited herb. To this end they study the
mechanism of action by which the body's own cannabinoids are
assembled,
function, and get broken down. A drug that encourages production
or delays
dissolution, they figure, might achieve the desired effect without
being
subject to "abuse..." News on the scientific front included the
likely
identification of a third cannabinoid receptor expressed in
tissues of the
lung, brain, kidney, spleen and smaller branches of the mesenteric
artery.
Investigators from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca both reported
finding
the new receptor but had different versions of its pharmacology.
It may
have a role in regulating blood pressure.
Several talks and posters described the safety and efficacy of
Sativex,
G.W. Pharmaceuticals' whole-plant extract containing high levels
of THC and
CBD (cannabidiol) formulated to spray in the mouth. G.W. director
Geoffrey
Guy seemed upbeat, despite the drubbing his company's stock took this
spring when UK regulators withheld permission to market Sativex
pending
another clinical trial. Canada recently granted approval for
doctors to
prescribe Sativex, and five sales reps from Bayer (to whom G.W.
sold the
Canadian marketing rights) are promoting it to neurologists.
Sativex was
approved for the treatment of neuropathic pain in multiple
sclerosis, but
can be prescribed for other purposes as doctors see fit.
A more detailed report on the ICRS meeting will appear in the
upcoming
issue of O'Shaughnessy's, a journal put out by California's small but
growing group of pro-cannabis doctors. To get on the mailing list,
send a
contribution of any amount to the CCRMG (California Cannabis Research
Medical Group) at p.o. box 9143, Berkeley, CA 94709. It's a 501c3
non-profit and your correspondent's main source of income.
Meanwhile, Back in San Francisco...
The California contingent was en route to the ICRS meeting when
Marian
Fry, M.D. and her husband, attorney Dale Schafer, were arrested on
federal
charges of conspiring to provide marijuana to a patient. On the
same day,
three San Francisco cannabis clubs were raided by the DEA and 19
people
-all Asians and a few Latinos- charged with conspiracy to
cultivate and
distribute marijuana. Affidavits allege that they grew cannabis in
rented
houses in S.F., the East Bay and the Peninsula for sale to
dispensaries and
on the black market. Three men were charged with intent to sell
ecstasy.
(An undercover agent allegedly had purchased 1,000 tabs from a man
named
Enrique Chan. During the raids on 26 locations, a total of 50 tabs
were
found on one individual.) The two alleged ringleaders, Richard Wang
and
Vincent Wan, were charged with money laundering. Defense lawyers
say the
alleged money laundering consisted of using dispensary proceeds to
underwrite the grow ops. At a July 1 detention hearing, bail for
Wang was
set at $2 million. Wan has not yet been apprehended or turned
himself in.
Former district attorney Terence Hallinan is representing Sergio
Alvarez,
who hired him several months ago after police raided a house in
the Sunset
district where Alvarez was allegedly cultivating marijuana. "I
didn't know
at the time that that would become part of a conspiracy case,"
Hallinan
said after the detention hearing. Alvarez's bail was set at
$500,000; his
working-class parents are putting up their modest Sunnyvale home
as surety.
Hallinan says that every cannabis dispensary has links to a
network of
growers, and that the decision to take down these three was an
attempt to
exploit anti-Asian sentiment. "They asked themselves, 'Who will we
start
with now that we've been given permission [by the U.S. Supreme
Court's
ruling in the Raich case]? Let's go after the Chinese!' San
Francisco has
more than a hundred-year history of anti-Chinese attitudes and
policies."
Contemporary resentments towards Asians in San Francisco center
around
their apparent economic successes. It's an impossibly expensive
housing
market, and one occasionally hears non-Asians say, with mixed
admiration
and envy, things like: "How can they arrive from Hong Kong in 1995
and buy
a house in the Sunset in 1996?" The answer is: by pooling resources
(conspiring) with friends and family to make the down payment.
----------------------------------------
------ End of Forwarded Message
--B_3203661909_374866
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>FW: CANNIBIS AND CANCER</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
------ Forwarded Message<BR>
<B>From: </B>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>
<B>Date: </B>Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:16:32 -0400<BR>
<B>Subject: </B>CANNIBIS AND CANCER<BR>
<BR>
HA HA! <BR>
<BR>
Pot Shots <BR>
<BR>
Study: Smoking? Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer <BR>
<BR>
By? FRED GARDNER <BR>
<BR>
Marijuana smoking -"even heavy? longterm use"- does not
cause cancer of the lung, upper? airwaves, or esophagus, Donald
Tashkin reported at this year's? meeting of the International
Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming? from Tashkin, this conclusion
had extra significance for the? assembled drug-company and
university-based scientists (most? of whom get funding from the
U.S. National Institute on Drug? Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's
lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that
marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial? tissue. With NIDA's support,
Tashkin and colleagues have identified? the potent carcinogens in
marijuana smoke, biopsied and made? photomicrographs of pre-
malignant cells, and studied the molecular? changes occurring
within them. It is Tashkin's research that? the Drug Czar's office
cites in ads linking marijuana to lung? cancer. Tashkin himself has
long believed in a causal relationship,? despite a study in which
Stephen Sidney examined the files of? 64,000 Kaiser patients and
found that marijuana users didn't? develop lung cancer at a higher
rate or die earlier than non-users.? Of five smaller studies on the
question, only two -involving? a total of about 300 patients-
concluded that marijuana smoking? causes lung cancer. Tashkin
decided to settle the question by? conducting a large,
prospectively designed, population-based,? case-controlled study.
"Our major hypothesis," he told? the ICRS, "was that
heavy, longterm use of marijuana will? increase the risk of lung
and upper-airwaves cancers." <BR>
<BR>
The Los Angeles County Cancer? Surveillance program provided
Tashkin's team with the names of? 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or
younger with cancer (611 lung,? 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal,
108 esophageal). Interviewers? collected extensive lifetime
histories of marijuana, tobacco,? alcohol and other drug use, and
data on diet, occupational exposures,? family history of cancer,
and various "socio-demographic? factors." Exposure to
marijuana was measured in joint years? (joints per day x 365).
Controls were found based on age, gender? and neighborhood. Among
them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31%? had used less than one
joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs,? 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and
3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs.? Tashkin controlled for tobacco
use and calculated the relative? risk of marijuana use resulting in
lung and upper airwaves cancers.? All the odds ratios turned out to
be less than one (one being? equal to the control group's chances)!
Compared with subjects? who had used less than one joint year, the
estimated odds ratios? for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .
74; for 10-30 j-yrs,? .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than
60 j-yrs. The estimated? odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers
were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs;? 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-
yrs; and 1.0 for more? than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less
precise results were? obtained for the other cancer sites,"
Tashkin reported.? "We found absolutely no suggestion of a
dose response."? The data on tobacco use, as expected,
revealed "a very? potent effect and a clear dose-response
relationship -a 21-fold? greater risk of developing lung cancer if
you smoke more than? two packs a day." Similarly high odds
obtained for oral/pharyngeal? cancer, laryngeal cancer and
esophageal cancer. "So, in? summary" Tashkin concluded,
"we failed to observe a? positive association of marijuana use
and other potential confounders." <BR>
<BR>
There was time for only one? question, said the moderator,
and San Francisco oncologist Donald? Abrams, M.D., was already at
the microphone: "You don't? see any positive correlation, but
in at least one category [marijuana-only? smokers and lung cancer],
it almost looked like there was a negative? correlation, i.e., a
protective effect. Could you comment on? that?" <BR>
<BR>
"Yes," said Tashkin.? "The odds ratios are
less than one almost consistently,? and in one category that
relationship was significant, but I? think that it would be
difficult to extract from these data the? conclusion that marijuana
is protective against lung cancer.? But that is not an unreasonable
hypothesis." <BR>
<BR>
?Abrams had results of his own? to report at the ICRS
meeting. He and his colleagues at San Francisco? General Hospital
had conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled? study involving 50
patients with HIV-related peripheral neuropathy.? Over the course
of five days, patients recorded their pain levels? in a diary after
smoking either NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes? or cigarettes
from which the THC had been extracted. About 25%? didn't know or
guessed wrong as to whether they were smoking? the placebos, which
suggests that the blinding worked. Abrams requested that his
results not be described in detail prior to publication in a peer-
reviewed medical journal, but we can generalize:? they exceeded
expectations, and show marijuana providing pain? relief comparable
to Gabapentin, the most widely used treatment? for a condition that
afflicts some 30% of patients with HIV. <BR>
<BR>
To a questioner who bemoaned? the difficulty of
"separating the high from the clinical? benefits," Abrams
replied: "I'm an oncologist as well? as an AIDS doctor and I
don't think that a drug that creates? euphoria in patients with
terminal diseases is having an adverse? effect." His study was
funded by the University of California's? Center for Medicinal
Cannabis Research. <BR>
<BR>
* *? * <BR>
<BR>
The 15th annual meeting of? the ICRS was held at the
Clearwater, Florida, Hilton, June 24-27.? Almost 300 scientists
attended. R. Stephen Ellis, MD, of San? Francisco, was the sole
clinician from California. Los Angeles? Farmacy operator Mike
Ommaha and therapist/cultivator Pat Humphrey? showed up to audit
the proceedings... Some of the younger European? scientists
expressed consternation over the recent U.S. Supreme? Court ruling
and the vote in Congress re-enforcing the cannabis prohibition.
"How can they dispute that it has medical? effect?" an
investigator working in Germany asked us earnestly.? She had come
to give a talk on "the role of different neuronal? populations
in the pharmacological actions of delta-9 THC."? For most ICRS
members, the holy grail is a legal synthetic? drug that exerts the
medicinal effects of the prohibited herb.? To this end they study
the mechanism of action by which the? body's own cannabinoids are
assembled, function, and get broken? down. A drug that encourages
production or delays dissolution,? they figure, might achieve the
desired effect without being subject? to "abuse..." News
on the scientific front included? the likely identification of a
third cannabinoid receptor expressed? in tissues of the lung,
brain, kidney, spleen and smaller branches? of the mesenteric
artery. Investigators from GlaxoSmithKline? and AstraZeneca both
reported finding the new receptor but had? different versions of
its pharmacology. It may have a role in? regulating blood pressure.
<BR>
<BR>
Several talks and posters described? the safety and efficacy
of Sativex, G.W. Pharmaceuticals' whole-plant? extract containing
high levels of THC and CBD (cannabidiol) formulated? to spray in
the mouth. G.W. director Geoffrey Guy seemed upbeat,? despite the
drubbing his company's stock took this spring when? UK regulators
withheld permission to market Sativex pending another? clinical
trial. Canada recently granted approval for doctors? to prescribe
Sativex, and five sales reps from Bayer (to whom? G.W. sold the
Canadian marketing rights) are promoting it to? neurologists.
Sativex was approved for the treatment of neuropathic? pain in
multiple sclerosis, but can be prescribed for other purposes? as
doctors see fit. <BR>
<BR>
A more detailed report on the? ICRS meeting will appear in
the upcoming issue of O'Shaughnessy's,? a journal put out by
California's small but growing group of? pro-cannabis doctors. To
get on the mailing list, send a contribution? of any amount to the
CCRMG (California Cannabis Research Medical? Group) at p.o. box
9143, Berkeley, CA 94709. It's a 501c3 non-profit? and your
correspondent's main source of income. <BR>
<BR>
Meanwhile,? Back in San Francisco... <BR>
<BR>
?The California contingent was? en route to the ICRS meeting when
Marian Fry, M.D. and her husband,? attorney Dale Schafer, were
arrested on federal charges of conspiring? to provide marijuana to
a patient. On the same day, three San? Francisco cannabis clubs
were raided by the DEA and 19 people? -all Asians and a few
Latinos- charged with conspiracy to cultivate? and distribute
marijuana. Affidavits allege that they grew cannabis? in rented
houses in S.F., the East Bay and the Peninsula for? sale to
dispensaries and on the black market. Three men were? charged with
intent to sell ecstasy. (An undercover agent allegedly? had
purchased 1,000 tabs from a man named Enrique Chan. During the
raids on 26 locations, a total of 50 tabs were found on one
individual.) The two alleged ringleaders, Richard Wang and Vincent?
Wan, were charged with money laundering. Defense lawyers say? the
alleged money laundering consisted of using dispensary proceeds? to
underwrite the grow ops. At a July 1 detention hearing, bail? for
Wang was set at $2 million. Wan has not yet been apprehended? or
turned himself in. <BR>
Former district attorney Terence? Hallinan is representing Sergio
Alvarez, who hired him several? months ago after police raided a
house in the Sunset district? where Alvarez was allegedly
cultivating marijuana. "I didn't? know at the time that that
would become part of a conspiracy? case," Hallinan said after
the detention hearing. Alvarez's? bail was set at $500,000; his
working-class parents are putting? up their modest Sunnyvale home
as surety. Hallinan says that? every cannabis dispensary has links
to a network of growers,? and that the decision to take down these
three was an attempt? to exploit anti-Asian sentiment. "They
asked themselves,? 'Who will we start with now that we've been
given permission? [by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Raich
case]? Let's? go after the Chinese!' San Francisco has more than a
hundred-year? history of anti-Chinese attitudes and policies."
Contemporary? resentments towards Asians in San Francisco center
around their? apparent economic successes. It's an impossibly
expensive housing? market, and one occasionally hears non-Asians
say, with mixed? admiration and envy, things like: "How can
they arrive from? Hong Kong in 1995 and buy a house in the Sunset
in 1996?"? The answer is: by pooling resources (conspiring)
with friends? and family to make the down payment. <BR>
<BR>
---------------------------------------- <BR>
<BR>
------ End of Forwarded Message<BR>
</FONT>
<br><br>
<tt>
www.ctrl.org<BR>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER<BR>
==========<BR>
ctrl is a discussion & informational exchange list.
Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not
soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy
theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-directions and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.<BR>
That being said, ctrl gives no endorsement to the validity of
posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read.
ctrl gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not
apply.<BR>
<BR>
There are two list running, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
CTRL@listserv.aol.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] has unlimited posting and
is more for discussion. CTRL@listserv.aol.com is more for
informational exchange and has limited posting abilities. <BR>
<BR>
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.<BR>
<BR>
Omimited posting abilities. <BR>
<BR>
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.<BR>
<BR>
Om</tt>
<br><br>
<?---- LSpots keywords ?>
<?---- HM ADS ?>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
<hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
<tt>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</tt>
</div>
<br>
<ul>
<tt><li type=square> Visit your group "<a href="http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/ctrl">ctrl</a>" on the web.<br> </tt>
<tt><li type=square> To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:<br> <a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject=Unsubscribe">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</
a><br> </tt>
<tt><li type=square> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.</tt>
</ul>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
<hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
</div>
</br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3203661909_374866--
