In matters of cannabinoids and cancer treatment I pretty much defer to Mara. She's an engineer by nature and training, and has used that inclination to create a beautifully elegant data collection method. In my opinion she's made a profound impact on how we think about cannabinoid therapies.
Let me see what I can share:
Awesome Thanks SweetSue. I watched a video with Mara Gordon on your recommendation and she had some interesting views I hadn't heard before. I'd love to hear anyone's feedback:
1. Your tolerance collapses after 72 hours without cannabinoids and you need to go back to very low doses when you resume treatment.
Absolutely. We have a thread for helping each other through the sentization process that begins with a 72-hour abstinence of cannabis, followed by a gentle and thoughtful re-introduction of your cannabis medication. It typically results in the effective dose being cut in half.
OtherMother said:
2. It's better to take THC and CBD separately at different times of the day – the interactions of these agonists and antagonists potentially weaken their anti-cancer effect if you do them simultaneously. I've read a paper before that showed that adolescents damage their brains with very high repeated doses of THC but that when they did it 50-50 with CBD there was no ill effect – feels like MG contradicted this?
THC is not a strong antagonist for the CB receptors, meaning it doesn't make a strong connection. CBD will "soften" the effects of THC, and Mara's contention is that she's seen an improvement in the efficiency of the meds when you seperate the doses of dominant cannabinoids by at least two hours. In her experience this keeps the doses lower.
When you work with the ECS a gentle approach will many times bring the same results, over a longer timeframe, but with less stress to the ECS. Get too much THC in particular in circulation and you run the risk of overwhelming the system and causing some receptors to go offline. Then you have to ramp up the doses to get the same effect. Cannabis is an out-for-pocket expense. Keeping doses down is always a popular option from the perspective of cost. Biobombs do this wonderfully
I'm personally not as concerned about this until we cross into cancer treatment, although I will confess that I use that two-hour window for my own meds. Mara has years of experience and data to back up her contentions. I'd follow that advice. Understand there are always both major cannabinoids in the medicines she's suggesting. Each dose uses a higher ratio of one or the other if the formulation wasn't evenly balanced by design. Many cancers are responding to a balanced ratio.
OtherMother said:
3. If you take cannabinoids and opiates at the same time, their interaction makes the opiate effect much stronger. The answer is to take half the opiate dose.
Absolutely. Cannabis has turned out to be the gateway drug to get
away from opiates. My signature line has a link to my latest thread, on tapering off opioids with cannabis. Dr. Sulak insists that you should never take an opiate without a small dose of THC. Not only can you reduce the opiate dose, but you'll get better pain management with both together than you will with either alone.
Opiates shouldn't be used for longer than two weeks. All those safety studies were done for two weeks. Don't get me started.
OtherMother said:
4. It's age that matters for dosing, not weight.
5. The younger the patient, the higher the dose should broadly be – albeit everyone has very individual therapeutic dose and it varies with different cancers.
Younger patients often take doses that would knock a grown adult on their ass. There's a theory that small children are still developing the ECS and don't have the same concentration of receptors adults do. Adults in the later years may have receptors cluttered or offline. At this point we don't know, but Mara's experience holds that it's age you want to pay attention to.
The process is the same with each patient - start sub-therapeutically and increase doses slowly and thoughtfully until the patient can't adapt and feel comforatble. Then you back off one level and stay there until you have a good reason to change it. With cancer patients you're watching the labs.
OtherMother said:
6. Once you get up to a dose of about 30mg-35mg of THC, you can start titrating up more aggressively.
If the patient can tolerate those doses they've developed a tolerance. I remember Cajun telling me once that it took a rediculous amount of cannabis for him to get high when he was up to a gram a day in suppositories.
OtherMother said:
7. If a cancer is in the CNS, which Heidi's is, you usually want to have a THC/CBD ratio that's much more THC. I dunno whether she would say leukaemia is an exception to this?
This is because there's a higher concentration of CB1 receptors in the CNS. I agree with her. Most of us are more comfortable suggesting at least a 2:1 dominance of THC for treating cancer, any cancer.
OtherMother said:
8. Avoid antioxidants: these prevent the cancer cells from oxidising, which is necessary in their destruction, so it undermines what you're trying to achieve. Examples she gave included vitamin C and blueberry extract (though some blueberries or whatever was okay if you don't go crazy).
Again, I can see her point here. Try not to counteract the medicine. Lol! We're so well-trained to go for anti-oxidants aren't were? I wouldn't hesitate to eat some blueberries or whatever. Don't eat them for any reason other than they taste good. Your cells really do know what they're doing. I do my best to not think of any food as dangerous, but make intelligent choices. When you brand a food with judgement it starts a snowball effect in your mind that gets confused by the cells. Choose good quality and tasty fuel and enjoy it.
OtherMother said:
9. Taking chemo drugs and cannabinoids at the same time tends to make them both work more effectively. I wondered about this. Someone else has told me that the necrotic effect of chemo drugs means they kill both healthy and cancerous cells, and that this prevents the body from having enough healthy cells to be able to heal itself. And therefore you are better off stopping chemo (and even maybe other conventional meds) and going all out on the cannabinoids. Any thoughts?
Unfortunately, just about everything conventional medicine does for cancer supports spreading the cells, beginning with the biopsy. We recently learned that standard chemo treatment for breast cancer punches holes into the bloodstream that spreads disease. I suspect if they have the courage to go looking further than breast cancer we'll find these results repeated.
Chemo is an indiscriminate killer. They've been shrinking the field of collateral damage, but their success rate for long-term relief with good quality of life is pretty abysmal. Just my opinion. Cannabinoids cause tumor cell necrosis by a number of pathways without damaging neighboring cells. This is what your ECS is evolved to do under optimal conditions.
Taking a cannabinoid dose about 30 minutes before a radiation or chemo therapy can mitigate many of the nasty side effects of those treatments and protect healthy cells.
OtherMother said:
10. Tinctures are bad news because they either contain alcohol or glycerin which are both full of sugar, which as we know feeds cancer cells.
Have you ever tried a tincture yourself? Alcohol burns. She's correct about the blood sugar concern, and I'll give her this one. When treating cancer you're treating an inflammed gut, among other things, and sugar in any form that's not fruit can make things more difficult.
OtherMother said:
11. She was quite down on suppositories except for cancers of the colon etc, saying she hadn't seen them have anything like the success rate. Would she not have heard of biobombs or even had issues with them? The vid is I think a few months old, so maybes this area is just developing really fast?
Whoah wasn't quite meaning to get past about five, but oh well, I hope it's interesting.
OM
I sometimes wonder if Mara had someone she loved die trying to use suppositories. Her resistance to them doesn't fit with the rest of her energy, or at least that's how it feels to me. There are many clinicians that don't share her bias and have patient histories to support their recommendations. Cajun himself recommended them to his own patients, because they worked.
This community - because of Cajun - possibly supports suppositories more than others. We also went through the trouble to pay attention to his teachings on bioavailability and develop the formulations for the biobombs as an attempt to increase the efficacy of this medicine that can be expensive and difficult to procure.
That's my thoughts. Anyone else want to jump in?