THC immune suppression

BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
Natural Cannabis may be safe and effective as a medicine, as I mentioned earlier, especially THCA, but THC is not a natural product, it's a semi-synthetic product and it turns out to be harmful. Smoking it is certainly not a natural way to consume herbal medicine, and cooking is not something that happens in nature. THCA good, THC bad. Recreational weed, insanity. Bottom line, you can't get "high" on Cannabis without harming yourself. Just have to get through life without getting high I guess. I know it sounds crazy.
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
It sure does sound crazy. Especially when compared to the compendium of formal testing.

Again, I suggest anyone afraid of weed should quit and stay out of weed forums.

If someone chooses to stay, then their REAL goal is that of yet another troll looking to argue for arguement's sake.

In either case, it's time to shut the fuck up
 
Last edited:
GroErr

GroErr

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
It's just such bullshit science. Typical of a "science" group funded by the beer or tobacco industries.
Click to expand...
Agreed, exactly what that site looks like. I have my own personal experience and know others who have successfully beaten cancer using MJ after being written off by oncologists. I'm calling bull-shit from first hand experience, not some loose reference to a non-existent study.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
I posted the documentation. People can read it and make their own choices. Frankly I couldn't care less if other people screw their own bodies up. Their problem really. Just thought I would post this thread in case one person who is worthy of life reads it and avoids dying from an infection or cancer due to consuming THC. You? I encourage you to smoke vast quantities and then hang around lots of contagious people. I think it would benefit society.
 
Moldy

Moldy

Well-Known Member
"Just regular brushing, the other stuff is impractical."

Well, if you like weed I'd say that it isn't "impractical", it's imperative that you use all available options.

BobCajun said:
I posted the documentation. People can read it and make their own choices. Frankly I couldn't care less if other people screw their own bodies up. Their problem really. Just thought I would post this thread in case one person who is worthy of life reads it and avoids dying from an infection or cancer due to consuming THC. You? I encourage you to smoke vast quantities and then hang around lots of contagious people. I think it would benefit society.
Click to expand...
This is a tired and old expression but allow me anyway... ROFLMAO
 
GroErr

GroErr

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
I posted the documentation. People can read it and make their own choices. Frankly I couldn't care less if other people screw their own bodies up. Their problem really. Just thought I would post this thread in case one person who is worthy of life reads it and avoids dying from an infection or cancer due to consuming THC. You? I encourage you to smoke vast quantities and then hang around lots of contagious people. I think it would benefit society.
Click to expand...
You need to be able to not only read, but comprehend/interpret what you read and read between the lines to catch speculative statements. Some would consider statements like the one's quoted below (copied from your reference articles on page 3) to be conclusive where they're just speculative and have no data/testing to support it.

1. "however the fact that current literature reports indicate that THC alters resistance to infection in vitro in a variety of experiments on animals supports the hypothesis that a similar effect occurs in humans."

2. "A Columbia study in 1999 by Dr James Dobson found a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white blood cell count 39% below the normal. He said, “Marijuana can cause great harm”."

Still calling bullshit on anything that you've posted here. 1. is strictly speculative 2. is something I have direct experience with as I go for blood tests every 6 months and all my counts are perfectly in line with those of a healthy person who has never had cancer. Maybe it's because I ingest MJ + edibles daily? Or in much larger amounts than the study and for about 6 years? (strictly speculating of course) lol
 
GroErr

GroErr

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
Since I've taken regular daily doses, I've lost 35 pounds, have normal blood pressure, take no medications and don't get sick. I see a doctor annually because insurance pays for it
Click to expand...
Yeah that's me, no pills other than my coconut oil/MJ caps and feel better than ever at 56. Start up indoor soccer this week and hopefully the snow comes early for ski/boarding season. Doesn't cost me anything for my 6 month checks either and just confirms this stuff is working.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
Listen, I don't give a crap whether you believe or agree with what I posted. Any questions? I almost got killed by THC. Think that was fun?
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
Believe what you want. I posted the results of a scientific controlled experiment. Your gripe is with the scientists.
Click to expand...
I don't believe anything about real world applications from this article.
Here is a link to the full article published by Dr Nagarkatti : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005548/

I've enough exposure to the subject to read the paper but not enough to really appreciate the biochem and endocrinology discussed. That said, the whole paper pertains to lab tests on specialized cells in controlled conditions. Nagarkatti doesn't take the leap that "Live Science Staff" -- the authors of the material you posted -- take by concluding human effects. Nagarkatti talks about using THC as a tool to shut off CB2 receptors and without shutting off CB1 receptors as a possible aid in treatment. He also says: "Clearly, additional research is necessary to validate these studies in humans through clinical trials ". After saying that he extrapolates and hypothesizes how breast cancer patients may be negatively affected by exposure to THC. But cancer patients have very weak immune systems to begin with. Nobody talks about abscessed teeth.

So, unless you've a doctor telling you that all your immunity issues ARE IN FACT due to smoking pot, you may be fooling yourself that you know the source of your problem. Maybe you should see a doctor or dentist to talk about your symptoms

That said, to be blunt, go to the fucking doctor or dentist and get that tooth checked out, you could have an infection in there that needs treatment or maybe something worse.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
You couldn't figure out what I meant? Maybe you can understand it if there's more words;

"Marijuana cannabinoids present us with a double edged sword," Nagarkatti said, because they can cause increased susceptibility to cancer and infections, but they can also open the door to opportunities to treat disorders where a suppressed immune system is beneficial, such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus and hepatitis." http://www.livescience.com/9008-marijuana-suppresses-immune-system.html

So is it effective for those conditions or does it NOT suppress the immune system, as you and Garden Gnome insist? Can't actually be both.
Click to expand...
Nagarcotti did not say "Marijuana cannabinoids present us with a double edged sword,". Some nameless "Live Science Staff" wrote the article you quoted. Also, Nagarkatti did not say that "THC did in fact increase cancer blah blah." That was "Staff". Nagarkatti said:

Clearly, additional research is necessary to validate these studies in humans through clinical trials. However, in other instances, such as in patients with breast cancer in which cannabinoid receptors may not be expressed by the cancer cells, cannabinoids may worsen the disease, because the immune system is weakened, and the breast cancer cells are resistant to cannabinoid-induced apoptosis. Thus, it is critical to balance the immunsuppressive effects with the anticancer properties, which require careful dose–response studies on these clinical outcomes. Overall, there exists a biphasic role for cannabinoids, and it depends on three key factors: (1) the type of cannabinoid, (2) the dose of cannabinoid, and (3) the type of cell that the cannabinoid is acting on. The degree of cannabinoid receptor expression may play role in some cases; however, the receptor-independent mechanism of action is evident for cannabinoids in some cell populations. In addition to the use of exogenous cannabinoids, in vivo manipulation of endocannabinoids may also offer novel treatment opportunities against cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Note that Nagarcotti appropriately puts up a disclaimer, then hypothesizes about an effect that might be something for the informed reader to think about. He expresses none the certainty you state. Your certainty is not based on his article, it is based upon something posted on Live Science and was written by somebody who did not attach his name to the article..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top