Though this study did not focus on other cancers, THC's adverse effect might not be limited to just HPV-related head and neck cancer.
From the paper[1]:
"Similar to CNR1, the cannabinoid receptor CNR2 was also found to be highly expressed and correlated with worse prognosis in tumors such as breast cancer (16), renal cancer (17), lung cancer (51), and HNSCC (21). In our study, the expression of CNR2 mRNA was upregulated in HNSCC compared with normal samples, and much higher in HPV-positive HNSCC samples. Meanwhile, knockdown of the expression of CNR2 inhibited the proliferation of HPV-positive HNSCC in vitro and in vivo. In addition, the selective CNR2 agonist Hu308 increased the growth, migration, and inhibited the apoptosis of HPV-positive HNSCC cells, whereas the selective CNR2 antagonist SR144528 exhibited an opposite effect. These phenomena were also observed in other tumors such as colon cancer, in which CNR2 activation promoted cancer progression via the AKT/GSK3β signaling pathway when cannabinoids used in concentrations similar to those in marijuana exposure (42)."
I hope someone with a background in this area can thoroughly evaluate this paper and explain to us laymen how reliable they think its methods and conclusions are. I also hope followup studies are done, particularly in humans, as this study was only carried out in cells and in mice.
As someone fighting cancer, this study worries me, despite the study being only done on cells and mice, and despite anti-drug research having a disgraceful history, which usually makes me take such studies with a grain of salt.
"In preclinical and early clinical studies, local application of IL-2 in the tumor has been shown to be clinical more effective in anticancer therapy than systemic IL-2 therapy, over a broad range of doses, without serious side effects."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleukin_2#Medical_use
I'm left wondering if the medical experts should be telling us to consume copper supplements after being on a course of penicillin based antibiotics to reduce our risk of cancer!
IL-2 not only has a role in cancer treatment, but by regulating the white blood cells, how useful is this for old age problems like (rheumatoid) arthritis and other things like that?
I know other chemicals vit K2-mk4 will reduce the inflammatory effect in RA (synovial cells), and RA may be the result of not enough of vit K2-mk4 which then increases demand for copper. K2-mk4 so far as I can tell is the only fat soluble vitamin which is stored in bone and also induces apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma, leukemia, and MDS cell lines.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18484089
This is just one pathway of many many in the body.
Medicine is a type of chemical programming/hacking.
Most of these cancers seem to hit people aged 40-60, and I’m not sure from the article but I think they are saying if you have this cancer smoking weed might speed it’s growth, but not that it is a cause of the cancer in the first place. If that’s right I don’t get why this is being described as a crisis. Just suggest patients don’t smoke if they are diagnosed with this cancer.
Given that caloric restriction makes chemo therapy more effective[1], I wonder whether the mechanism is as simple as people who smoke cannabis during treatment having more appetite, which lowers the effectiveness of the treatment.
An important fact to have on the table would be whether marijuana use is tightly linked to early mortality. Regardless of the cause, whether it's cancer or heart disease, substantial increases in mortality should be observable.
>... researchers have identified the molecular mechanism activated by the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)... in the bloodstream that accelerates cancer growth...
sigh, a lot of articles in the past mentionned the positive effects of cannabinoids on tumor growth (slower growth, no metastasis, also apoptosis trigger) so now it's a double edged sword.
Conclusions: Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses.
In nutrition it's my personal conclusion after roaming pubmed. Any ingredient can be linked to problems or benefits. Eat many, eat few, move often, relax, think, hug and sleep.
So, if HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, and you are in a monogamous relationship, and you and your partner don't have it, what's to worry about here?
How do you know? HPV is transmitted by skin to skin contact. Have you ever had a wart on your skin, anywhere?
HPV is incredibly common, contagious, and causes no noticeable effects in the overwhelming majority of cases. If you've had sex with more than one person, or the person you've had sex with has had sex with more than one, you've probably been exposed to one or more strains.
You’re making two points there. The response to the first is that the vast majority of cancer causing strains of HPV produce no noticeable warts.
The second is yep, it’s common as hell - at least in older generations, post widespread availability of gardisil
Furthermore condoms are ineffective at stopping HPV transmission, even though they are very effective against HIV. This is why almost every adult carries HPV (or did until a few years ago when the vaccines rolled out).
Apparently about 80% of sexually active people have some form of HPV.
Even when people think they don't have it, it's quite probable they do. Statistically speaking, more than a couple people in these comments have some form of it.
Google is telling me you can receive the vaccine as early as 9, but it’s typically recommended/given at 11-12.
If that’s correct, HPV is something as simple as foot/hand warts that can often be spread in things like gym locker rooms. A fair amount of people are exposed to those environments around or before that age, & sometimes it’s spread by something as simple as your shared home bathtub/shower.
Monogomous doesn't mean anything in this context. It is possible to get it from non-sexual encounters - we've confirmed cases in virgins, after all [1] and if anyone has ever had other partners, they (or you!) have even more chance to have it as skin to skin contact will spread it (in other words, that condom won't stop it). Most people have had HPV at least once in their life. A lot of strains simply have no symptoms whatsoever, so folks don't even know they had it. Many cases simply clear up on their own after producing no symptoms. Some do cause warts and some hang around and cause cancer later in life, though.
Can you be sure you've never been exposed to HPV? HPV is extremely common, most HPV infections are asymptomatic, and HPV can lie dormant in the body for years.
Rather than "worry," there are a few actionable items -
1) Get your HPV vaccine and encourage others to get theirs
2) Get regular cervical cancer screenings ("pap test") if you have a cervix
3) See a medical professional if you have any symptoms
We should prioritize development and population-wide administration of effective broad-spectrum HPV vaccines, regardless of how marijuana interacts with HPV-caused cancers. HPV is basically the cause of cervical cancer, work towards eradicating this long ignored as benign virus already.
Gardasil 9 hits enough of the HPV variants that the rate of cancer-causing HPV infections has fallen by 90% in the US. And that's with the fraction of folks who are anti-vaxxers taken into account. This is one of those diseases where the means to prevent being infected is already in hand.
"Among teen girls, infections with HPV types that cause most HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 88 percent."
This isn't exactly the same statistic as what I said, since not all HPV infections occur during teenage years. But this is the statistic I was referring to. Apologies for my imprecision.
When you start having sex you’ll likely be exposed to the virus. Once you have been exposed, the vaccine doesn’t do you any good. The number of people in an age cohort that haven’t had sex rapidly approaches 0 as that cohort ages into adulthood. Therefore, it is almost entirely offered to teens to try and vaccinate before they’re naturally exposed.
You can get it up 'til you're 45 (after that it's not approved), but you have to ask. My understanding is most adults have already been infected, so it is not considered very important to vaccinate them. If you haven't had any or many sexual partners, I reckon it could make sense to get it even if you're not a teen any more. On the other hand, if you've been with more than a handful of people, you've probably already been infected.
Until they opened it up to 45 year olds I was always a year or two too old (or just male when it was approved only for females). I’m to get my third dose in a few weeks. I’m married but it just makes sense to guard against preventable illness. I’ve only been with a few partners total so it’s likely that I’m gaining some level of protection from getting a head and neck cancer.
There are some reports of gaining some immune response to HPV strains not targeted directly by Gardasil 9. This makes sense since there are hundreds of strains and while it may not have a practical affect on me, it’s a nice feeling to know that I’m gaining some protection.
At the moment, since mental health seems to be a bigger issue than cancer (according to the media), it’s not trivial to define what an awful hand is :)
Ah, okay, I didn’t realize that you meant using healing crystals instead of vaccines. I read it as: parents using healing crystals at all is as worrisome as not vaccinating their children.
It also is, children shouldn't be misled by their parents about scams like healing crystals because they will believe it as they are children. Later in life they might resort to crystals instead of getting medical attention.
I'm far more worried by children being misled by their parents about scams like stimulants instead of meditation. I've never heard of someone developing a dependancy on a crystal.
That study has been debunked. For example, in it he guesses at some factors fundamental to his thesis. Later studies to empirically measure those factors found his guesses to be wildly incorrect, and correcting for the empirical data, Ioannis claims are found to be unsupportable.
I'm not aware of those studies related to the Ioannides paper, but the story on replication in psychology and specifically social psychology is not at all pretty.
My sense is that there are research domains that are functional, but others (social, clinical psychology) which are not at all. Given the level of motivated cognition and sloppy thinking evident in decades of psychiatric and other research into cannabis use, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find low standards in studies of this type. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's certainly my prior when reading any dietary studies, or studies of "bad effect x" of recreational drugs.
In general, when publishing any study like this the research should be contextualised properly. For example, it would make sense to state the effect size in relation to the risk of drinking 10% more than the recommended units of alcohol, or smoking 20 cigarettes per day.
A fair criticism of Ionnidis would be "statisticians always knew this about every field that reports statistical significance with p-values, but no one was going to listen, I don't know what that guy's got". I'm not aware of any substantive "debunking" of his famous paper, which is not a "study".
You are correct - it was not a study, since that would require studying some empirical data instead of making up values. It was actually an essay, akin to a guest blog post, but for a journal [0].
Look at his paper - it clearly relies on values that he made up - there is not a single measurement of actual papers to fill in his formulas.
What he did was show it was possible for stuff to be wrong, given values he pulled out the air. When people did studies to measure those values from real papers, which Ioannidis did not, they found his made up values far from reality. For example, this paper shows how to do actual measurements of the values Ioannidis made up [1].
Here's one [2] (of many) paper showing that Ioannidis did not prove the claim people think he did for other reasons.
Carefully read the actual original paper, and note that there are many values to input to his model, that he hand waves over and does not actually measure.
Yeah, the papers you cite both basically start "Look, we know you all abuse the heck out of p-values and you really should stop (wink wink nudge nudge) doing that" and go on to "gee, if you start with much more optimistic assumptions than Ioannidis, then you don't come to such rhetorically devastating conclusions". Of course, he's a very bad man for pointing all this out, isn't he?
Why, I'm an emotional wreck I guess to notice these things! Maybe when you calm down you can examine the assumptions behind the method of examining p-values in the paper you cited.
Debunked where, by whom? Not that Ioannidis isn't a publicity hound of the first water, but if nothing else it'd be useful to have cites for the next time this comes up.
I posted 2 citations in this thread. Or simply read his paper, and you can see how it doesn't prove without fail what it claims - it relies on numbers he made up - later groups measured these numbers and found the made up ones invalid.
So not surprised with this news considering the role it plays in cancer prevention initially and then protects the cancer cells once they get established.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696075/
"This review is the introduction to a special issue concerning, glutathione (GSH), the most abundant low molecular weight thiol compound synthesized in cells."
That reads as if the cause is a user fundamentally failing to care for their basic needs. I’m sure applying that stress to the body increases the risk of a lot of medical conditions.
I felt that it reads like it was written by someone trying to convince others that marijuana use isn’t really the cause of this issue. I smoke on occasion and am certainly not anti-pot, but I’m often irked by the pro-marijuana group’s eagerness to sweep side-effects under the rug and to pretend pot is totally healthy. I’m going to need more than a Wikipedia article to write this off, personally.
“ Cannabinoids Promote Progression of HPV-Positive Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma via p38 MAPK Activation”
That is the study name. You are referencing the title of the press release from the university they work at.
While it’s perfectly fair to discuss the historical context of words, it’s important that we also recognize that using commonly used terminology in translating science for public consumption is necessary.
It’s also important to get basic facts right before trying to criticize peoples research.
Can you explain? The title paper is 'Cannabinoids Promote Progression of HPV-Positive Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma via p38 MAPK Activation'. You are probably refering to their press release.
I agree. I was kind of shocked at the number of people I knew who thought it was bad before suddenly decided it wasn’t anymore and started consuming it after it was legalized in the states I frequent. Just because something is legal does not make it a good idea to do; by that token just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it bad to do (other than legal problems that is). I think the important thing is that it was legalized. I could care less if it’s healthy or not. Plenty of dangerous and risky things are legal. It’s part of the beauty of being an adult in a free country. I’m kind of tired of governments banning things because they are potentially harmful; it robs us of our agency.
Every time a substance is put on schedule 1 it means basically no research will be conducted on the biochemical pathway that it uniquely activates, which means banning substances is ultimately holding back our progression into neuroscience and other biochemical fields. I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons. At least then people will know what they are getting.
>by that token just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it bad to do
Well, yeah. Hiding a Jew in 1940s Germany or a native child in 1960s Canada was totally illegal. Democracy functions when the individual is the moral authority because large groups reliably become sociopathic. I suspect that's baked into our biology to some degree, why would we historically form a very large group absent the kind of existential crisis that might require sociopathic behaviour?
Agreed. Humans are currently caught in an epic struggle with the very primal instincts that enabled our species to endure as an unbroken genetic line descending from the most basic lifeform on earth to one which is capable of modifying its own genome. I doubt there is anything we couls consider “evil” that is not related to the operation of ancient traits which gave our ancestors evolutionary advantage at the time.
> I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons.
Is probably a bit too spicy. You say the government robs us of agency but you know what else does? Addiction. It’s not bad for a government to put regulations in place for dangerous substances. I do, however, agree with the subtext that it should be _decriminalized_.
PBS Nova did a great documentary on Medical Cannabis recently. The researcher they interviewed said that "people seem to think it's either the greatest thing in the universe that cures all ailments or it's the devil's grass. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle".
It can do great things like alleviate seizures in children, but they showed it has issues as well. One example was that those who smoke small amounts to help with PTSD will eventually become desensitized and have to increase their dosage and at higher doses, it could make the patient worse off.
I wish all the scheduled drugs had lists of side effects from actual studies and clinical trials to the FDA standard, just like every other crazy deadly poisonous substance they approve over there. The states aren't cutting it, its just embarrassing at this point that even as recreationally available that this substance cant be at the same standard as other drugs and relies on conjecture.
> eventually become desensitized and have to increase their dosage
What's interesting is this applies to many FDA approved drugs too. The body has amazing homeostasis ability, which unfortunately leads to "rebound" effects from many drugs, e.g. when the PPI (heartburn drug) wears off, you might have even more heartburn because your body saw an unusually low acid level in your stomach and declared an emergency increase in acid production.
> it's either the greatest thing in the universe that cures all ailments or it's the devil's grass. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle
Correct. And of those two extremes, it's probably closer to the negative side than to the greatest thing ever. Unfortunately, the greatest thing ever has not been found yet.
Middle is the wrong way to put it. There is a middle to every bell curve, but being on the wings of the bell curve is usually a sucky place to be.
I would say it’s both and it will depend on the users genetics and the quality of the cannabis. The pesticides used on illegal cannabis productions is not something to be ignored.
It was extremely disappointing that NOVA completely failed to mention Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome, and they also falsely claimed that there have been 0 marijuana-related deaths. They really didn't do their research for that episode.
The fact that you really have to hunt for these deaths, and that even seemingly-rigorous medical studies on the question can only dig up a total of three cases, combined with the fact that hundreds of millions of people (at least) use cannabis very regularly, really tells you all you need to know.
Cannabis use simply is not fatal, or even highly dangerous, under all normal conditions. Sure, yes, you can find a few 1 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 100,000,000 exceptions. You can probably find some of those for chocolate ice cream, too.
Three ice-cream deaths in a single state in a single incident! Nothing is free of risk, but despite the fearmongering, I still think cannabis is not very risky compared to many other things.
I didn't have to "hunt" for anything -- I am a chronic sufferer of CHS and have almost died from it on a number of occasions. And the deaths I linked to are only a handful among many suspected ones, for an illness which is just starting to be properly investigated.
ERs have been flooded with severe cases of CHS over the past two decades. It's not just three people dying in rare cases, it's potentially 2.75 million[1] Americans experiencing CHS episodes every year which, given the 35 million[2] "regular" cannabis users, means that approximately 7% of users are susceptible.
For you to dismiss this horrific illness as "not fatal" and even "not dangerous" is outrageously arrogant and ignorant of a very real condition. You're essentially saying that those people did not matter, or did not exist, and that the pain and suffering I have experienced is irrelevant just because it's not the same experience as your own.
It is beyond disturbing that you feel so comfortable making medical claims about something you clearly have no understanding of. Shame on you.
"Among 2127 patients approached for participation, 155 met inclusion criteria as smoking 20 or more days per month. Among those surveyed, 32.9% (95% CI, 25.5-40.3%) met our criteria for having experienced CHS. If this is extractable to the general population, approximately 2.75 million (2.13-3.38 million) Americans may suffer annually from a phenomenon similar to CHS."
How do you explain that cannabis has been used recreationally for thousands of years around the world, but this CHS is only limited to the last two decades in the US?
Don’t you think there might be something else going on there?
It's not limited to the last two decades in the US -- and to clarify, I said that ERs have been flooded with an increase of cases in the past two decades, not that it has only existed for that long. There are a dozen reasons that CHS is only very recently becoming understood and why known cases are skyrocketing, and why I can be 100% confident that CHS is both real and that cannabis is the direct cause. Here are just four of them.
1. Cannabinoid content is through the roof. Legalization created a marketing arms race between growers to develop hybrids which yield the highest possible THC and CBD content (the only two cannabinoids listed on the labels), and that resulted in nearly every available strain now containing more than triple[1] the average THC since the 1990s. Plants are effectively now at their maximum potential levels, and that's not even considering the advancements in oil production leading to levels as high as 99% THC, while also being extremely easy to over-consume.
2. We thought it was strictly a childhood disease for hundreds of years[2]. In the early 19th century, documented reports of cyclical vomiting were largely from children experiencing migraines and an unexplained slowing of GI motility resulting in prolonged vomiting. Any cases reported by adults were presumed to be a continuation of their childhood cyclical vomiting syndrome. This presumption lasted until the 1980s, so until the past few decades there hadn't been a motivation to consider other possible culprits.
3. We thought cannabis increased GI motility. Until the research flood gates opened over the past couple of decades, there was a presumption that cannabis "improved" the digestive process. I've only ever found research that refutes this idea, so it seems to be a Berenstain Bears situation where everyone thinks we had done the research and came to a determination, but we've actually been operating entirely on the anecdote that weed "makes you hungry." In reality, cannabis slows GI motility[3a] and the "hunger" is actually a combination of reduced psychological inhibition and a reduction of PYY hormones[3b]. We think we're hungry, but we're actually overfilling our stomachs to extremes.
4. CHS can be induced on demand. A person susceptible to CHS needs only to consume cannabis for a prolonged period and then stop suddenly, at which point a vomiting episode is almost guaranteed to start. Unfortunately, "stopping" doesn't necessarily mean quitting, as all it takes to induce a CHS episode is eating a meal without smoking afterward and then going to sleep. At some point during the night, any previously smoked cannabis will no longer have an effect, but it takes a long time (typically days) for the body to restart producing the required endocannabinoids to replace the marijuana cannabinoids that the system had previously been flooded with -- which is why CHS sufferers often report of waking up unexpectedly early preceding an episode. All of this temporarily results in the upper intestine and stomach valve becoming virtually non-functional, but because the stomach is still producing digestive fluids, it eventually becomes overfilled. The vomiting starts because the stomach is desperately pumping and convulsing in an attempt to push its contents through a valve that has effectively become a brick wall.
> None of your sources are relevant to what you are claiming
The titles of the research I linked to literally say "Cyclical Vomiting Syndrome" and "the effects of cannabis on appetite hormones". But you're claiming they don't have anything to do with cyclical vomiting or how cannabis affects appetite? You're claiming the exact opposite of reality.
> and the first one pushes ads for mushroom NFTs
A website had an ad? Stop the presses and shut down the internet! After all, we can't be having websites trying to pay their bills, right?
> Pushing an agenda?
You are performing the most ridiculously blatant case of gaslighting I've ever come across. You're trying to tell me that I don't experience the things I experience, and that I'm not reading the things I'm reading, and that ALL of my doctors are directly lying to me (and hundreds of thousands of other people), and that hundreds of scientists and medical professionals are wrong and creating fake research. But you're not making these claims because you actually know better or even bothered reading the things I linked to, but instead because a website had an ad that offended you, and for some insane reason you saw that as an opportunity to troll someone.
What's even more absurd is that you think I have an anti-marijuana agenda, while I'm sitting here actively smoking a bowl right now, knowing full well that I put myself at risk for CHS. I never said I was anti-marijuana, I said marijuana isn't perfectly safe.
So, you concocted an entire scenario in your head, and absolutely none of it is true. You are a shockingly disturbed individual, and the exact embodiment of what makes this place a toxic community.
How so? Developing tolerance to cannabis greatly diminishes negative side effects. It is subjectively very different, more cerebral than intoxicating, compared to only partaking occasionally.
I'm not going to download and read the pdf until later, but with three cases only reviewed by the researchers and not actively monitored by them (it seems), I'm curious how they could be at all certain CHS was caused by cannabis. A lot of receptors in the stomach, so it could make sense. Three cases studied after the fact though, I was hoping for something more thorough. The USA today article is reprehensible.
As a chronic sufferer of CHS, I'd be happy to tell you all about it if you're genuinely curious. But there really hasn't been a question of the connection between cannabis and cyclical vomiting since the 2004 study[1] led to a fury of other research[2].
Sample size of one: I enjoy the pleasant effects of smoking, but it seems to trigger and/or worsen my migraines. The answer is certainly somewhere in the middle.
The only reason we permit a fun substance to be used is if we believe there is a medical reason. It is no surprise then that we invent medical reasons to legalize things when the ultimate goal is to have them be fun.
Like, I enjoy psilocybin and MDMA, but I'm going to upvote everything that claims it is good and I'm going to contribute my part to making it sound like the discovery of antibiotics. You know why? Anything less than that and the puritans won't let me have fun.
So I gotta lie. But you know I'm lying, I know I'm lying. It's just that when we make the argument in aggregate, you can't prove it. And there's enough dodgy science that I can invent all sorts of stuff. "There's some evidence for" is a quick trick to take a nonsense study and Gish Gallop someone with it. But that's the game. You made the game. I just play it.
I think it's a global trend now. Social network turns what used to be noise into "millions of users are joining onto $website" and the hidden motives are obfuscated. Crypto, cannabis..
I mean, legit medical use of weed is a real thing. helps with cancer nausea, some seizures, pain etc. doesn't work for me though - gives me panic attacks and keeps me from shutting out how badly my body has degenerated from this awful disorder.
but it works great for a lot of other folks. it just depends.
Weed gives me horrible panic attacks as well. Only had it five times and every time it was horrible. There is something genetic here I wish they would investigate. I think it might get to the bottom of some mood disorders.
Yep, cannabis seems like the solution for a lot of random things (various confounding diseases, including depression, etc) until you look at the possible long-term effects. Those are usually conveniently ignored. I get it though. The guy hyping and selling you cannabis is not going to be dealing with your long-term effects in 20 years.
Increased potency does not necessarily have to be a bad thing if 1) products are clearly labeled with THC percentage, which they are these days now that pot is legalized in many places, and 2) users are intelligent about their intake.
One could even argue that stronger marijuana is good, since that means you need to smoke less to get an effective dose, and that reduces any adverse effects from inhaling smoke.
The analogy to "moonshine" is also a poor one. The increased potency of marijuana that is competently grown these days is also accompanied by superior aromas/flavors and an increased ability to customize your experience by selecting known strains. It's a superior product, not merely a product with more THC.
Some people enjoy a mixed drink after dinner, others go through a few bottles of two-buck chuck wine a day.
That's pretty much how it works with pot, too. That fragrant little bud of hydro is going to put you to bed after a couple of puffs, while all-day smokers can burn an eighth or more a day of mids.
The stocks were overvalued by idiots who don’t understand cannabis is a commodity that is extremely easy to grow, with virtually zero barriers to entry. Canada has or had a massive surplus of cannabis.
Black market weed is expensive because every step in the chain adds a risk premium to account for the legal risk of possessing and selling cannabis (and the physical risk of being robbed, etc). If it’s legal, that risk premium evaporates and the price (and profit margin) goes way down.
that an exchange-traded fund that is made up of cannabis-related companies has lost 70 percent of the value that it once had in 2019.
as far as how that can be used as a soothsaying device, i'm not a trader. I presume it's to be considered related to the public's interest and consideration towards the growth of the particular industry.
Or that it has not had great value to begin with and was mostly hype. It's somewhat counterintuitive given the pandemic, stay at home, work from home and the anxiety and depression epidemic that it has brought along with increased alcohol and MJ use.
Just how internet stocks fell 90% in 2000-2003, thus demonstrating the "Nobel" economist Paul Krugman's was right. His insight was that the internet was just a fad and would have no more impact than the fax machine.
I notice a number of smart investors are starting to accumulate cannibis stocks. The trigger might be a repeal of the federal ban, which seems to be on the cards, even though (sic) Joe Biden promised to do it.
From the paper[1]:
"Similar to CNR1, the cannabinoid receptor CNR2 was also found to be highly expressed and correlated with worse prognosis in tumors such as breast cancer (16), renal cancer (17), lung cancer (51), and HNSCC (21). In our study, the expression of CNR2 mRNA was upregulated in HNSCC compared with normal samples, and much higher in HPV-positive HNSCC samples. Meanwhile, knockdown of the expression of CNR2 inhibited the proliferation of HPV-positive HNSCC in vitro and in vivo. In addition, the selective CNR2 agonist Hu308 increased the growth, migration, and inhibited the apoptosis of HPV-positive HNSCC cells, whereas the selective CNR2 antagonist SR144528 exhibited an opposite effect. These phenomena were also observed in other tumors such as colon cancer, in which CNR2 activation promoted cancer progression via the AKT/GSK3β signaling pathway when cannabinoids used in concentrations similar to those in marijuana exposure (42)."
I hope someone with a background in this area can thoroughly evaluate this paper and explain to us laymen how reliable they think its methods and conclusions are. I also hope followup studies are done, particularly in humans, as this study was only carried out in cells and in mice.
As someone fighting cancer, this study worries me, despite the study being only done on cells and mice, and despite anti-drug research having a disgraceful history, which usually makes me take such studies with a grain of salt.
[1] - https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/26/11/2693